U B 



RELIEF OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL 
of the Army from the Duties of 
his Office, Report from the 
Committee on Military Affairs# 


FT MEPDE 
GenCol1 






























































62d Congress, 

°2d Session. 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


Report 

No. 508 


BELIEF OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE ARMY 
FROM THE DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE. 


April 8, 1012.—Ordered to be printed. 


Mr. Hay, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the 

following 

REPORT. 


[To accompany H. Doc. 619.] 

The Committee on Military Affairs, to which was referred certain 
papers relating to the relief of Maj. Gen. Frederick C. Ainsworth, 
The Adjutant General of the Army, from the duties of his office, and 
also the letter, House Document No. 619, of the Secretary of War, 
transmitting the said papers, have carefully considered the letter 
and papers and make the following report. 

The letter of the Secretary of War, dated March 12, 1912, is as 
follows: 

[House Document No. 619. Sixty-second Congress, second session.] 

War Department, 
Washington, March 12, 1012. 

Sir: In response to House resolution 415, of February 23, 1912. requesting the 
Secretary of War to furnish copies of all records on file in the War Department 
bearing on the extracts from the communications of The Adjutant General of the 
Army, quoted in the order of February 14, 1912, relieving him from duty, I have 
the honor to say that I am directed by the President to transmit to your honor¬ 
able House these copies, as being public documents on the files of the War De 
partment, the disclosure of which will not, in his opinion, be detrimental to the 
public interests. 

I am, however, directed by the President to say that these papers relate to 6 
matter of military discipline and executive action which, by the Constitution, ife 
confided exclusively to the President as Commander in Chief of the Army, and 
that their transmittal is not to be construed as a recognition of the authority ot 
jurisdiction of the House or of any of its committees to require of the Chief 
Executive a statement of the reasons of his official action in such matters or a 
disclosure of the evidence upon which such official action is based. 

Very respectfully, 

Henry L. Stimson, 

Secretary of War . 


The Speaker of the House of Representatives. 






















2 


RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


It will be observed that this letter denies the right of the House 
of Representatives to call for the papers above referred to, on the 
ground that they “ relate to a matter of military discipline and execu¬ 
tive action which, by the Constitution, is confided exclusively to the 
President as Commander in Chief of the Army.” It will also be 
noted that the Secretary of War says that he is directed by the 
President to assert the principle above quoted. 

A careful examination of the Constitution has failed to disclose 
any authority vested in the President which would justify him in 
withholding from the Congress, or either House thereof, informa¬ 
tion of a public nature regarding his acts as Commander in Chief 
of the Army, pertaining to the discipline of the Army or to any 
officer or man thereof. Certainly, in time of peace, the acts of the 
President with reference to the discipline of the Army are a matter 
which Congress has the right to inquire about, and to demand public 
papers with reference thereto. In this case the papers called for 
were public and official papers on file in the War Department, and 
certainly subject to such an inquiry. The committee calls the atten¬ 
tion of the House to the attitude of the Secretary of War toward 
resolutions of inquiry. If there were any good and valid reasons 
why these papers should have been withheld from this House, those 
reasons should have been given in a different way and by the Presi¬ 
dent himself. The Secretary of War, in the opinion of your com¬ 
mittee, has a very erroneous idea as to what his relation is to the 
Congress of the United States. His office is not a constitutional one. 
He derives no power from the Executive. He is the creature of the 
Congress of the United States, and as such is amenable to it. He 
has no power which the Congress does not confer. The letter of the 
Secretary of War does not even say that he has laid the matter before 
the President, and that the President authorized him to make the 
claim therein set forth. If the matter had been called to the atten¬ 
tion of the President, and he thought that the Congress was invading 
his prerogative, then he, and not the Secretary of War, was the 
proper person to assert his claim. 

In considering the questions raised by the papers referred to your 
committee, including the question of what congressional action, if 
any, should be taken upon them, the committee does not feel author¬ 
ized, nor, indeed^ is it necessary to go beyond the papers themselves, 
the Congressional Record, and other public sources of information! 
In making this report the committee has therefore acted strictly 
within these limits. 

An examination of these papers shows that under date of Febru¬ 
ary 14, 1912, the Secretary of War addressed a letter to Maj. Gen. 
F. C. Ainsworth, The Adjutant General of the Army, charging him 
with insubordination and other improper official conduct, quoting 
in said letter extracts from various official and personal communica¬ 
tions in support of that charge and relieving him from discharging 
the duties of his office and directing him to await further orders in 
this city. 

From accounts in the public press it appears that this letter was 
delivered to The Adjutant General at sometime during the day of 
February 15, 1912, and on the same day, about or near the same time, 
a copy of said letter was read on the floor of the House of Represen¬ 
tatives, while the Army appropriation bill was under consideration; 
and was printed in the Congressional Record of that day. 

n ftr 

ir@n§i? 


RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


3 


On February 22, 1912, the House of Representatives, by resolution 
No. 415, directed the Secretary of War to transmit to the House full 
copies of all papers containing, or having any bearing on, the ex¬ 
tracts quoted in the letter of the Secretary of War, February 14, 
1912. In response to this resolution the Secretary of War, on March 
12, 1912, transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
copies of a large number of documents. These papers and the ac¬ 
companying letter of the Secretary of War were referred to this com¬ 
mittee on March 13, 1912. Upon an examination of these papers it 
lias been found that many of them are not pertinent, or are of no 
importance, but those of them which are pertinent are embraced in, 
or appended to, this report. 

The Secretary of War in his letter of February 14, 1912, addressed 
to The Adjutant General of the Army, uses language more intem¬ 
perate and less justifiable than any which your committee has been 
able to find in these papers, or which has been quoted by the Secre¬ 
tary of War. The Secretary charges Gen. Ainsworth with impung- 
ing the fairness and intelligence of the Secretary of War; with 
criticizing and questioning the military capacity, experience, intelli¬ 
gence, fairmindedness, honor, and good faith of officers of the Gen¬ 
eral Staff and the War College; with insubordination and impro¬ 
priety of official conduct ; with charging, by innuendo, the Chief of 
Staff with improper motives; with habitual rudeness and ill temper; 
with intolerance of subordination and readiness to impugn the 
motives or intelligence of associates; and with making official com¬ 
munications the occasion for contemptuous comments and aspersions 
upon fellow officers; and for insolence to superiors. 

In order to support these accusations and to give color to these 
grave charges against an officer of the Army who had rendered long 
and distinguished service to his country, the Secretary of War, in 
his letter of February 14, 1912, quotes certain extracts from official 
communications by The Adjutant General, but even a careful reading 
of those extracts, without reference to their context, does not in any 
wise warrant or justify any of the grave accusations in support of 
which the extracts were adduced by the Secretary of War; and a 
careful examination of the full context of the papers sent to this 
committee in response to resolution No. 415, and from which these 
extracts were taken, makes it plain not only that The Adjutant Gen¬ 
eral was blameless in the matters to which those papers relate, but 
that great injustice has been done Gen. Ainsworth, because of the 
unwarranted assertions, misstatements, and suppression of facts con¬ 
tained in the widely published letter of the Secretary of War of 
February 14, 1912. The Secretary of War, in his letter of Feb¬ 
ruary 14, alleges as the principal ground of his action in suspending 
Gen. Ainsworth the contents of a memorandum addressed by Gen. 
Ainsworth to the Chief of Staff, dated February 3, 1912. It appears 
from these papers that this memorandum was prepared in compli¬ 
ance with instructions conveyed by the Chief of Staff to Gen. Ains¬ 
worth in a document of which the following is a copy: 

[Memorandum of The Adjutant General.] 

War Department, 

Office of the Chief of Staff, 
Washington, December 15, 1911. 

The Secretary of War directs that you submit for the consideration of this 
office your opinion concerning the following proposition to abolish the present 


4 


RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


muster roll and to adopt as a part of this plan the descriptive list herewith. 
Should any feature or features of the proposition be, in your opinion, inadvisable 
or impracticable, a statement will be given in every case showing in detail 
wherein the matter is considered inadvisable or impracticable. 

PROPOSITION. 

It is proposed to abolish the muster roll, placing the information now con¬ 
tained on that roll on the descriptive list and company return. At the same 
time the descriptive list will be so modified as to give a complete military 
record of the soldier. It will follow the soldier throughout his entire enlist¬ 
ment, at the expiration of which or upon the soldier’s severance from the serv¬ 
ice by death, desertion, or other cause it will be sent to The Adjutant General 
of the Army for file. There is no intention of abolishing the monthly ceremony 
of muster, and the mustering officers’ certificates will be made as at the present 
time on the pay roll. 

The requirements of the twelfth article of war will be complied with by desig¬ 
nating the pay rolls of December 31 and June 30 “ Muster and pay rolls ” and 
entering thereon the data called for by this article of war. 

PURPOSES OF THE MUSTER ROLL. 

The purposes of the muster roll are: 

(1) To furnish a complete history of the organization for the period covered 
by the roll. 

(2) To furnish a complete military record of every member of the organiza¬ 
tion for the period covered by the roll. 

(3) To enable the War Department to furnish the Commissioner of Pensions 
data in connection with pension claims made by former soldiers. 

(4) To enable the War Department to furnish the Auditor for the War 
Department information necessary to settle the accounts of certain soldiers. 

(5) To enable the War Department to answer inquiries from friends, rela¬ 
tives, and others regarding the whereabouts, physical condition, etc., of soldiers. 

(6) To enable the recruiting branch of The Adjutant General’s Office to 
determine the number of prospective vacancies in the various organizations. 

If the muster roll were abolished, these purposes would be accomplished, as 
follows: 

(1) As at present, the complete history of the organization will be given on 
the monthly company return under the head “ Record of events,” which is 
consolidated and reported to the War Department on the regimental return. 
It is thought that the present practice of reporting the “ Record of events ” on 
the muster rolls and on the company return also is merely a duplication of 
work with no corresponding benefit. 

(2) The complete military record of every member of the organization will 
be given on the descriptive list. This record will be practically in carded 
form when it reaches The Adjutant General’s Oflice, and much more accessible 
than at the present time on the muster roll. 

(3) Information required by the Commissioner of Pensions will be obtained 
from the descriptive lists. As all such requests are about former soldiers, the 
descriptive list will be on file in The Adjutant General’s Office when the re¬ 
quest for information reaches there. 

(4) Information required by the Auditor for the War Department will be 
obtained from the descriptive list. It is understood that over 95 per cent of 
the requests for information from the auditor are about former, dead, or re¬ 
enlisted soldiers, or deserters. 

(5) Many of the inquiries from friends, relatives, and others regarding sol¬ 
diers could be answered by The Adjutant General with as much detail as at 
present. In case The Adjutant General’s Office could not give the information 
requested from the records in his office he could direct the inquirer to com¬ 
municate with the commander of the organization to which the soldier be^n^s 
By having organization commanders report by name on the monthly returns 
all transfers, deaths, and desertions, which data would be consolidated on the 
regimental return, The Adjutant General’s Office would always know the 
whereabouts and general status of every enlisted man in the Army 

(6) To determine the number of recruits needed in an organization at any 

given period, the organization commander could be required to furnish The 
Adjutant General with a periodical statement of the number of prospective 
vacancies in his organization. v 


RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


5 


Ly adding the following headings to the new descriptive list herewith (which 
was prepared before the proposition to abolish the muster roll was considered) : 

wounds, and sickness; (2) assignment or transfer to company; 

) extia duty, special duty, and detached service; (4) confinement or arrest in 
quarters the form will give all the information at present given by the muster 
roll except the record of events, which is now and will continue to be given on 
the company return, and which reaches the War Department in consolidated 
form on the regimental return. 

SOME OF THE ADVANTAGES OF THE PROPOSED PLAN. 

(1) The abolition of the muster roll, a periodically submitted return which 
contains much data that reaches The Adjutant General’s Office in other ways, 
and the preparation of which roll requires much time and labor. 

(2) Great simplification in the matter of the descriptive list. At present 
whenever a soldier is detached from his company a new descriptive list is pre¬ 
pared and forwarded to his commanding officer; should he return to his 
organization, or be sent to another command, another descriptive list is pre¬ 
pared and forwarded to the proper commanding officer, and so it goes, a new 
descriptive list being prepared in each case. The plan proposed would obviate 
the necessity of preparing a new descriptive list in every case, thus not only 
making away with the clerical work involved, but also making away with the 
possibility of errors, which always exist in copying. 

(3) Assuming that a soldier, who is retired after 30 years’ service, has spent 
two-fifths of his time on foreign service, his military record would be contained 
in something like 130 muster rolls. When this man applied for retirement The 
Adjutant General’s Office would make a search of 130 muster rolls in order to 
get his military record. Under the proposed plan it would be necessary to 
make a search of only eight or nine descriptive lists. Furthermore, if it is 
ever desired to get any particular feature of a soldier’s record, the information 
desired would be found on the same numbered page in every descriptive list. 
With the muster rolls it would be necessary to pick out the information desired 
from the various remarks after the man’s name on every separate roll. 

(4) After the Civil War it took a number of years, at a big cost of time and 
money, to card the muster rolls of the Volunteers. 

It is understood that after the War with Spain it took several years to card 
the muster rolls of the Volunteers. 

Under the proposed plan the muster rolls of both Volunteers and Regulars 
would be virtually carded as soon as war ended. 

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN CASE A DESCRIPTIVE LIST WERE LOST. 

• 

To begin with, experience has shown that descriptive lists are very, very 
seldom lost. It may, with safety, be estimated that no more than 1 in every 
50,000 is ever lost. The plan of having only one descriptive list is followed both 
in our Navy and Marine Corps. Inquiry in the Bureau of Navigation shows that 
during the last two and one-half years, during which time over 100,000 descrip¬ 
tive lists were handled, only one or two were lost. In the Marine Corps since 
1904 descriptive lists have been forwarded from station to station about 100,000 
times, and about 20 or 25 have been lost, 10 of these having been lost in the 
San Francisco fire. Of course, in the Navy and Marine Corps sailors and 
marines are transferred much more frequently than in the Army. 

However, should a descriptive list be lost, a new one could easily be prepared. 
The four vital parts of a descriptive list are: First, the list of deposits; second, 
the soldier’s clothing account; third, the soldier’s medical history; fourth, the 
soldier’s physical description. 

The list of deposits could be obtained from the Paymaster General; the cloth¬ 
ing account from the retained individual clothing slips in the soldier’s organiza¬ 
tion; the medical history from the Surgeon General’s Office and The Adjutant 
General’s Office; the physical description from The Adjutant General’s Office. 

Nearly all the other information, which is only of secondary importance, con¬ 
tained in the descriptive list could be obtained by investigation, but even if such 
data as a complete record of extra duty, special duty, detached service, etc., 
could not be obtained, it would make no difference. 

Leonard Wood, 

Major General, Chief of Staff. 


6 


RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


[Memorandum for The Adjutant General.] 

War Department, 

Office of the Chief of Staff, 

January 8, 1912. 

The Secretary of War directs that you submit as soon as possible the mem¬ 
orandum called for from this office on December 15, 1911, with reference to 
abolishing the muster roll. 

L. W., 

Major General, Chief of Staff. 


[Memorandum for The Adjutant General.] 

War Department, 

Office of the Chief of Staff, 

January 31, 1912. 

The Secretary of War directs that your opinion with reference to the abolition 
of the muster rolls, originally called for on December 15, and again called for on 
January 8, be furnished this office with the least practicable delay. The matter 
has been under consideration for a long time, and final action is being delayed 
solely with a view to receiving your reply. 

L. W„ 

Major Genera], Chief of Staff. 

It will be seen that Gen. Ainsworth was directed to submit for 
the consideration of the office of the Chief of Staff his opinion, etc.; 
not for the consideration of the Secretary of War; nor does it any¬ 
where appear in these papers that this memorandum was intended 
for the consideration of the Secretary of War. 

The communication of Gen. Ainsworth to the Chief of Staff in 
response to the foregoing document is as follows; the portions printed 
in black-face type are those which are quoted by the Secretary of 
War in his letter to Gen. Ainsworth of February 14 as evidence of 
insubordination and other misconduct on his part: 

[Memorandum.] 

War Department^ 

The Adjutant General’s Office. 

In tlie accompanying memorandum of tbe Chief of Staff, dated December 15, 
1911, The Adjutant General is called upon, first, for his opinion concerning 
a proposal to abolish the present muster roll and “to adopt as part of this 
plan the descriptive list herewith ”; and, second, to furnish a statement show¬ 
ing in detail wherein he considers any feature or features of the proposed plan 
to be inadvisable or impracticable. 

In compliance with the first part of this call, The Adjutant General expresses 
the opinion that the entire plan is both impracticable and inadvisable, and 
that the formulation of it is a forcible illustration of the unwisdom of intrust¬ 
ing the preparation or amendment of the forms of Army reports to those who 
have no practical knowledge of the uses to which those reports are to be put. 

In this connection it is deemed proper to remark that it is understood, per¬ 
haps incorrectly, that the plan now under consideration was formulated by two 
relatively young officers, neither of whom has any practical knowledge of the 
purposes for which muster rolls are used in the War Department. One of these 
officers, out of a total commissioned service of 14 years and 8 months, has 
served but 2 years with .the regiments to which he had belonged, and but 1 
year and 1 month in command of a troop therein. The other," out of a total 
commissioned sei \ ice of 1 1 years and 8 months, has served T vears and 9 
months with the regiments to which he has belonged, and but T year and 2 
months in command of a company therein, exercising that command for only 
4 months as a captain, 8 months as a first lieutenant, and 2 months as a 
second lieutenant. Inasmuch as the total service of these officers as company 
commanders only amounts to about a year for each of them, their ability to 



RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


/ 


deal with the subject in question, even on the company commander’s side of it, 
is by no means apparent. 

Neither of these officers, nor any other officer in or out of the General Staff, 
no matter how long he may have been in service, is qualified to prepare forms 
of any kind for use in The Adjutant General’s Office, unless, through actual 
service in that office, he has acquired a practical knowledge of the manner in 
which and the purpose for which the information recorded on these forms is 
used. 

It is a self-evident proposition that any bureau of the War Department that is 
charged by law or regulations with the obtaining and keeping of certain informa¬ 
tion, and that alone knows just what demands are likely to be made upon it from 
all sources for such information, is the best judge, and the only competent judge, 
of the form in which and the extent to which such information should be fur¬ 
nished to it. Therefore, it may be fairly stated as a general principle that the 
judgment of a chief of bureau as to the necessity for any particular report or 
return, or for any particular item of information required to be embodied 
thereon, should have much greater weight than the views of officers who have 
little or no knowledge of the purposes for which the reports, returns, or in¬ 
formation in question are used in the War Department. 

The muster roll is one of the most ancient and most important of our mili¬ 
tary reports. In nearly its present form it was in use in the American colonies 
long before their separation from Great Britain. It has stood the test of prac¬ 
tical use for more than 150 years, both in peace and war, and on its pages, 
preserved in the archives of this office, is recorded the history of the American 
soldier from 1775 to the present time. 

Thousands of millions of dollars have been disbursed, and more than 
$350,000,000 are now being disbursed annually for pensions alone, and almost 
all of that enormous expenditure has depended, and much of it still depends, 
primarily upon the showing of the muster rolls as to military service and mili¬ 
tary status, because upon that showing depends every other question of title 
under the pension laws, regardless of whether the claims be based upon wounds, 
injuries, disease, age, or any other ground. And upon this showing of the 
muster rolls many other millions have been disbursed, and are still to be dis¬ 
bursed for back pay, bounty, and other allowances, to say nothing of the claims 
of soldiers, their widows, and orphans, under local and other laws conferring 
rights, priviledges, and benefits upon them on account of honorable military 
service. 

The experience of much more than a century of both peace and war has 
demonstrated conclusively that, with but few exceptions, all of the items of 
information that are now recorded on muster rolls that are forwarded to the 
War Department at frequent intervals, there to be examined, corrected, and pre¬ 
served, are indispensable in the conduct of the current business of the depart¬ 
ment and are absolutely essential to the future protection of the interests of 
the Government and of a myriad of claimants against it. And now it is lightly 
proposed to abolish this time-honored, time-tried, and invaluable record, ex¬ 
amined and corrected as each part of it is received in the War Department and 
all of it preserved there in safety, and to substitute for it a curtailed form 
of individual record that shall not reach the department until after the soldier 
is separated from the service, that shall not be subjected to any expert 
scrutiny until it is impossible to discover or correct serious errors or omissions, 
and that in many cases in time of peace, and in a multitude of cases in time of 
war, must inevitably be lost or destroyed before reaching the department, thus 
leaving a void in the military histories of the soldiers concerned, no part of 
which can be filled without the expenditure of much time and labor, and much 
of which can never be filled at all. 

In compliance with the second part of the accompanying call, the following 
statement is submitted, although it is recognized that it will be difficult, if not 
impossible, to formulate any statement that will carry conviction to anyone who 
is so unmindful of consequences, or so uninformed as to the needs of the Gov¬ 
ernment and the public with regard to the matter in question, as seriously to 
propose to abolish one of the most important, if not the most important, of all 
the records of the War Department. However, the statement is submitted in the 
confident expectation that when other, if not wiser, counsels shall prevail, and 
after experience with the proposed plan or any similar plan shall have shown the 
inevitable evil effects thereof, this statement will receive the consideration that 
may not be given to it now. 


8 RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


The principal reasons for regarding the proposed plan as inadvisable and 
impracticable are as follows: 

The proposed plan is plainly unlawful. The twelfth article of war, which 
embodies the law relative to the rendition of muster rolls, is as follows: 

“Art. 12. At every muster of a regiment, troop, battery, or company, the com¬ 
manding officer thereof shall give to the mustering officer certificates, signed 
by himself, stating how long absent officers have been absent and the reasons 
of their absence. And the commanding officer of every troop, battery, or com¬ 
pany shall give like certificates, stating how long absent noncommissioned 
officers and private soldiers have been absent and the reasons of their absence. 
Such reasons and time of absence shall be inserted in the muster rolls opposite 
the names of the respective absent officers and soldiers, and the certificates, 
together with the muster rolls, shall be transmitted by the mustering officer to 
the Department of War as speedily as the distance of the place and muster 
will admit.” 

It is proposed in the accompanying memorandum of the Chief of Staff to 
evade this requirement of law by calling the pay rolls of June 30 and December 
31 “ muster and pay rolls,” entering thereon the data required by article 12, yet 
maintaining the monthly ceremony of muster. But the adoption of this proposal 
could hardly fail to be regarded generally as a mere subterfuge of a kind that 
would be scorned by honorable men in any of the relations of private life, and 
that would be most discreditable to a great department of the Government in its 
management of the affairs of the Nation. 

Article 12 requires that at every muster certain facts and the reasons therefor 
shall be certified to, and that these facts and reasons shall be “ inserted in the 
muster rolls,” not in pay rolls, even though they be called muster and pay rolls, 
and be made semiannually. Moreover, the article specifically requires that the 
muster rolls shall be transmitted by the mustering officer to the Department of 
War as speedily as possible. The plain intent of this requirement is that the 
muster rolls shall remain in the War Department, and the article has been so 
construed by that department from time immemorial. But pay rolls, whatever 
other name may be given to them, are not transmitted to the War Department 
by any mustering officer, nor do they remain in that department when they 
reach it. They are vouchers to paymasters’ accounts, and as such are forwarded 
by the paymasters with their accounts to the Paymaster General, by whom they 
are examined and then transmitted to the Auditor for the War Department, in 
whose office they remain. The adoption of the plan proposed in the accompany¬ 
ing memorandum, aside from being liable to criticism as being an indefensible 
and discreditable subterfuge, would be a plain violation of both the letter and 
the spirit of the law. 

It ought to go without saying that The Adjutant General’s Office should be 
constantly in possession of the latest obtainable information as to the where¬ 
abouts and status of every officer and enlisted man of the Army, and that this 
information should be in the shape of direct, positive, and affirmative reports, 
leaving nothing to be assumed or inferred from the mere absence of such reports. 

Under the proposed plan of abolishing the muster rolls, keeping the record of 
soldiers on individual descriptive lists that shall be forwarded to the depart¬ 
ment only at the expiration of the soldier’s service, and requiring the monthly 
returns to show only transfers, deaths, and desertions by name, The Adjutant 
General’s Office would have, except in case of transfer, death, and desertion, no 
positive information whatever with regard to any soldier in the Army between 
the dates of his enlistment and assignment to an organization and the date of his 
separation from the service, a period which in the cases of men serving their 
full terms in an organization, as the majority of them do, would now be a period 
of three years. During all this time the department would be in entire igno¬ 
rance as to the status and conduct of the soldier, and would not even know 
whether he was a private or a sergeant major. 

In responding to requests and appeals from official and private sources, aver¬ 
aging more than 100 a day, relative to the whereabouts, present status, transfer, 
or discharge of soldiers, and to many other kindred subjects relating to them, 
this office would be unable, for periods ranging from one month to three years, to 
give any information whatever with regard to the soldiers concerned beyond the 
ipere fact that they had been assigned to certain organizations at certain more 
or less remote dates. In every such case it would be necessary for the office to 
communicate with, or to advise the applicant to communicate with, the com¬ 
manding officer of the organization to which the soldier belongs, with no 
eertainty that he would not be on detached service, or on furlough, or absent 


RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


9 


in confinement or otherwise. All this would involve much delay in every case, 
and a delay of several months in the case of every man stationed or supposed 
to be stationed in the Philippine Islands. Surely, the great amount of business 
ot this kind that comes to The Adjutant General’s Office from bureaus of the 
YVai Department, from other departments, and from the public at large ought 
not to be subjected to the vexatious and wholly unnecessary delays to which 
much of it would inevitably be subjected under the proposed plan. 

lhe department ovves a duty to the public in this very important matter of 
being ready to furnish it proper information in response to reasonable and 
pioper inquiries, and if it can not discharge that duty with reasonable prompt¬ 
ness it will subject itself to well-merited reproach. Would not the department 
be justly censurable if, in response to the appeal of an anxious father or 
motliei, it could do no more than to say that the son had been assigned to a 
certain organization, perhaps two years previously; that since that time he 
had not been reported to have died, to have deserted, or to have been dis¬ 
charged; and that for further information concerning him inquiry should be 
made of his company commander in the Philippine Islands, from whom an 
answer might be expected in about four months? 

The Adjutant General’s Office is frequently called upon to furnish, under 
paragraph 124, Army Regulations, complete descriptive lists of surrendered 
or apprehended deserters from organizations serving in Alaska or beyond the 
continental limits of the United States; also to furnish at the earliest prac¬ 
ticable moment descriptive lists of soldiers separated, without such lists, by 
transfer or otherwise, from organizations serving at remote stations in the 
United States or beyond the continental limits thereof. During the Civil War 
thousands of men absent from their commands and without descriptive lists 
were discharged from hospitals, convalescent camps, parole camps, and other 
similar centers of concentration, on descriptive lists prepared from muster rolls 
on file in The Adjutant General’s Office, and furnished by that office. Many 
men were discharged in the same way during the War with Spain, and it is 
certain that in any war of magnitude great numbers of men who are absent 
from their commands without descriptive lists, or whose commands have been 
mustered out of service, will have to be discharged in the same way. Unless 
the department is constantly in possession of the military histories of soldiers, 
complete up to the latest possible date, such as are now .furnished by the muster 
rolls, it will be impossible for the department to meet any of the demands 
made upon it in any of the classes of cases just mentioned. And it will be 
equally impossible for the department to check, verify, or correct the statements 
or allegations of service that are received in connection with the many appli¬ 
cations that are submitted annually for discharge by purchase, for refirement, 
for long furloughs, and for various other privileges and benefits. 

It will be seen by the foregoing statement that it is simply impossible for 
the department to wait, as the plan under consideration proposes it shall, for 
the details of a soldier’s military history until after he shall have been sepa¬ 
rated from service, and then to receive that history in a form that it is im¬ 
possible to check or verify in many of its most important particulars. Long 
experience has proven that accuracy and completeness of a soldier’s military 
history, as well as its safe preservation, can be assured in no other way than 
by having the record of his service made up at comparatively short intervals 
and transmitted directly to the War Department, where it will be safe from 
all the vicissitudes of the field, and where it will be subjected immediately to 
examination and checking by experts, who will promptly take such steps as 
may be necessary to correct or supply any errors or discrepancies that may be 
discovered in the record. Such errors and discrepancies are discovered in great 
numbers in the rolls and other reports and returns that are received in times 
of profound peace from the Regular Army with its experienced officers and 
enlisted men, and it has been found that in time of war, as was to be expected, 
a vastly greater number of errors and deficiencies are to be met with in the 
rolls and other papers received from the Volunteer Army with its inexperienced 
officers and men, all profoundly ignorant as to military paper work and -all of 
its requirements. 

What kind of a service record of the volunteers of a general war should we 
have if, under a plan such as that in question, they should be permitted to go 
on from the beginning to the end of their service, keeping their individual 
records in their own way, perpetuating their own errors and shortcomings, and 
the War Department receiving no part of the record of the majority of them 
until after the disbandment of their commands, when it would be forever too 


10 RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


late to correct errors, supply deficiencies, and reconcile discrepancies? Is not 
this consideration alone sufficient to condemn the proposed plan as utterly 
impracticable and unworthy of serious thought? 

It is obvious that, in order that the department may meet the demands of its 
own business, as well as that of other departments and of the public at large, 
it will be necessary for it to have at some reasonably short intervals of time, 
not longer than two months, reports showing the name, organization, rank, 
status, and station of every enlisted man of the Army. This information can 
not be furnished with less labor, or in any more convenient form, than in the 
shape of a muster roll, which is and always has been preeminently the his¬ 
torical record of the individual soldier. Such information can not properly or 
economically be embodied in the monthly return, which is essentially a record 
of a command and of its numerical status from month to month. 

The War Department should also have such an accurate, complete, and con¬ 
tinuous record, showing affirmatively and not negatively or by inference the 
entire military history of every soldier, as will enable the department to fur¬ 
nish the Commissioner of Pensions, the accounting officers of the Treasury, and 
other officials of the Government accurate and complete information upon which 
to base the disbursement of the many millions of dollars that are expended 
annually on account of military service, and under constantly changing legisla¬ 
tive provisions. Long experience has shown that the only way in which such a 
record can be assured is to have it made and furnished to the War Department 
at short intervals, so that errors or omissions shall not be perpetuated in it, 
but shall be detected and corrected contemporaneously, while it is still possible 
to do so, through the vigilant scrutiny and methodical checking to which it has 
been found absolutely necessary to subject all current muster rolls and other 
reports relative to officers and enlisted men. 

It is only by unremitting watchfulness and voluminous correspondence that 
the War Department is now able to keep an accurate record of the essential 
features of a soldier's service. Under the scheme now brought forward, by 
which it is proposed that the full record of the soldier shall not be sent to the 
War Department until after he has been separated from the service, the thou¬ 
sands of errors and omissions that are now readily detected and promptly 
corrected would be perpetuated, with the result that it would be impossible to 
correct or explain them in later years, when it would be of vital importance to 
do so in connection with pension or other claims. 

In the accompanying memorandum reference is made to the fact that a cer¬ 
tain form of descriptive list is in use in the Navy and Marine Corps, and that 
fact is Set up as an argument in support of the whole plan proposed in the 
memorandum. But the proponents of this plan fail to mention the much more 
important fact that neither the Navy nor the Marine Corps depends upon the 
descriptive list alone or even chiefly as the central record of its enlisted per¬ 
sonnel, as it is proposed that the War Department shall do; and that neither 
the Navy nor the Marine Corps is content to remain for years in utter ignorance 
of the rank, status, conduct, and even the whereabouts of men, as it is proposed 
that the Army shall do, but that on the contrary both the Navy and the Marine 
Corps insist on the rendition of muster rolls at short intervals, the Navy requir¬ 
ing its rolls to be rendered every three months and the Marine Corps requiring 
them every month. 

Upon inquiry in the Navy Department and at Marine Corps headquarters the 
facts stated below have been ascertained : 

The Navy has used the “ continuous descriptive list ” for many years, recently 
changing from sheet to book form, but has never found it practicable to do away 
with the quarterly muster roll. The Navy finds it highly desirable to have 
each enlisted man carefully and frequently rated as to professional qualifications 
and conduct and uses the record on the descriptive list, now called “ service 
record,” and a special report in all cases of transfer, discharge, desertion, or 
death to record these ratings which are not reported on the muster rolls. But 
the Navy Department depends upon the muster roll as a final resort touching 
all matters required to be of record there. 

The Navy Department would be better off than the Army without the 
muster roll, as with the Navy transfers are the very general rule, while with 
the Army they are the exception. Very few indeed of the enlisted men of the 
Navy serve a whole enlistment at the same station or on the same vessel. 
Most of them have several changes, and each change brings to the Navy De¬ 
partment a report giving a complete record of the sailor while serving at that 
assignment. 


EELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 11 

In the Army a majority of the soldiers serve the entire enlistment in one 
organization, and without the muster roll this office would have no record 
of them from the date of assignment till the date when separated from the 
service. 

In addition to the muster roll and “ service record,” the Navy Department 
is also keeping a card record of all sailors, using this record to card information 
obtained otherwise than from the muster rolls, but this system is quite new 
and the department is not yet satisfied as to its value. 

Since about 1884 the Marine Corps has used in one form or another what 
may be called a continuous descriptive list, a form that follows the marine 
throughout his period of service and is forwarded to the Marine Corps head¬ 
quarters whenever the marine is separated from the service. 

This record was at first in the form of a double sheet of paper and was called 
“a descriptive list.” It was then changed to the form of a thin blank book 
about 4 by 10 inches, called the “ Descriptive book ”; then by slight modifica¬ 
tion to its present form and called “ service record.” 

The Marine Corps also keeps a carded record of every enlisted man. This 
record is made from the monthly muster rolls and is depended upon above all 
other record to give the complete and accurate history of the man. 

The experience of the Marine Corps with the descriptive list as now pro¬ 
posed for the Army, and as used by the Marine Corps for over 25 years, is 
stated to be that the record contained in the descriptive list is often found to 
be incomplete and inaccurate, and little use is made of this record after it is 
received. 

Each station or ship keeps a retained copy of the monthly muster roll as 
the history of the enlisted personnel of the command. 

The proponents of the truly remarkable plan now under discussion have be¬ 
trayed a lamentable lack of knowledge of the nature and uses of our so-called 
descriptive list, of which it is proposed that there shall be made but a single 
copy, which shall follow the soldier throughout his entire enlistment. If they 
had had, or had profited by, even a little service as company commanders in 
recent years, they would have learned that our descriptive list is primarily an 
organization record and the only approach to a complete record of its men that 
any organization has. 

Prior to 1904, the books known as the “ Company clothing book ” and the 
“ Descriptive and deposit book ” were required to be kept among other per¬ 
manent records of organizations. These two books, properly kept, contained a 
very full record of every soldier and of his accounts. Whenever a soldier was 
detached or transferred, his company commander prepared, from these books 
and the retained copies of company pay rolls, a descriptive list which was sent 
to the soldier’s new organization commander. 

In 1904 the General Staff devised a new system of keeping, by the “ loose-leaf ” 
method, a record of the soldier and of his accounts. The form devised (Form 
29, M. S. O., 1904) was known as the “Descriptive list, military record, and 
statement of accounts,” and replaced the “Company clothing book” and the 
“ Descriptive and deposit book,” which were discontinued and have never been 
authorized since. Under this system, whenever a soldier was detached or trans¬ 
ferred, the sheet bearing his “ Descriptive list, military record, and statement of 
accounts ” was withdrawn from the live file, a copy of as much of it as was re¬ 
quired was forwarded to his new commander, and the original sheet was filed in 
the permanent records of the company with other similar sheets pertaining to 
other former members of the organization. 

The “ loose-leaf ” form was found on trial to be unnecessarily large and cum¬ 
bersome, and in 1906 a new form (Form No. 29, M. S. O., 190G), bearing the same 
title as the old one, viz, “ Descriptive list, military record, and statement of 
accounts,” was adopted and is in use to-day, having undergone no material 
change except as to its title, which, for the sake of bre\ ity, was changed to 
“Descriptive list” by-Paragraph I of War Department General Orders No. 162 
of 1909. This form is used in all respects the same as the “loose-leaf” form of 
1904* that is, it is primarily an organization record on which is entered from 
tirneto time all of the principal items of the military history of every enlisted 
man of that organization and of his accounts. It is retained permanently with 
the other records of the organization, and when a soldier is transferred or de¬ 
tached the necessary data are transferred from the original or record desciipti\e 
list to a new descriptive list, which is forwarded to the soldier’s new commander. 

Under the proposed plan of abolishing the muster roll and requiring a single 
descriptive list, of which no copy shall be made, to follow the soldier throughout 


12 RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


liis entire enlistment, and finally go to The Adjutant General’s Office, the Com¬ 
pany clothing book,” and the “ Descriptive and deposit book ” having already 
been abolished, organizations would be left without any authorized record what¬ 
ever of its former members, except the meager and unsatisfactory record 
afforded by the retained pay rolls, which are destroyed at the end of five years. 
(G. O. 70 of 1904; par. 281, A. R.) 

Moreover, under the present system, as under all of its predecessors, any com¬ 
mander to whom a man is transferred always retains for his own protection the 
descriptive list that he received with the man, and if he has occasion to transfer 
him elsewhere always makes out a new list and sends it to the new commander, 
fin the medical department the old list is retained and a new one made on 
transfer only wheii there has been some change in the status of the man’s pay 
or other accounts. Par. 1473, A. R.) In this way every commander has in his 
possession documentary evidence that will protect him against the results of 
negligence or errors on the part of any previous commander; but under the pro¬ 
posed plan, after the separation of a man from service, not one of his com¬ 
manders will have any evidence whatever to protect him against a charge for an 
improper payment for which some other commander was really responsible, nor 
would any commander against whom such an improper charge should be made 
have any record to indicate or even suggest the name of the officer really 
responsible. 

Except in the medical department in time of war, transfers and detachments 
are not of sufficient frequency to make burdensome the labor of making out 
new descriptive lists in the cases of transferred or detached men, and the situa¬ 
tion in the medical department has been fully met in this respect in the manner 
set forth in paragraph 1473, Army Regulations. If at any time it shall appear 
that any other branch of the service is similarly circumstanced, the same pro¬ 
vision can easily be made for that branch. At any rate, it is not believed 
that officers who are liable to be charged with responsibility for the errors or 
omissions of others will be willing to save themselves a little labor at the cost 
of giving up documentary evidence that will protect them against such a charge. 

The plan of committing the entire military record of a soldier to a single 
document that is likely to pass through many hands, and is expected to land 
in The Adjutant General’s Office after no one in the Army has any further use 
for it, contemplates in this respect putting all our eggs in one basket and 
taking a great many chances of losing both eggs and basket beyond recovery. 
It is noted that in the accompanying memorandum it is stated that losses of 
this kind in the Navy and Marine Corps are negligible; but even admitting the 
accuracy of that statement, concerning which further inquiry might well be 
made if it were worth while to make it, it is sufficient to say that the experience 
of The Adjutant General’s Office with a similar record is entirely to the con¬ 
trary. The descriptive and assignment cards of soldiers, which are only re¬ 
quired to pass from places of enlistment to the organizations to which the men 
are to be assigned, and thence to The Adjutant General’s Office, are very fre¬ 
quently lost in transit, so that a great many of them fail to reach their final 
destination. 

One does not need prophetic vision to see clearly that with armies in the 
field in time of war the loss of descriptive lists must inevitably be great, and 
that in the rush of business incident to such periods these losses might nor, and 
probably would not, be discovered until long after their occurrence. In the 
meantime the records of the War Department would be incomplete. The robust 
assertion in the accompanying memorandum that “ should a descriptive list 
be lost a new one could easily be prepared,” is not quite as convincing as 
assurance of Holy Writ. On the contrary, it is certain that even the few rela¬ 
tively unimportant items of record that the memorandum specifies as obtain¬ 
able from one source or another, could only be obtained by the expenditure of 
an amount of time and labor that would be poorly repaid by the meager data 
that could be collected. 

The cool assurance with which it is asserted in the memorandum that “ it 
would make no difference ” if other data could not be obtained, “ such as a 
complete record of extra duty, special duty, detached service, etc.,” evidences 
such ignorance of the vital bearing that many of the data so lightly spoken of, 
but which, if lost, could never be supplied from any record source, have upon a 
multitude of pension and other claims that it would be a loss of time and effort 
to discuss the subject further here. 

There are other grave objections to the proposed plan that might be stated, 
but if those that have been pointed out are not sufficient to carry to the minds 


RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 13 

of those with whom the decision of this matter now rests the conviction not only 
that the proposed plan is both illegal and impracticable, but that it is most 
inadvisable ever to intrust to incompetent amateurs the management of busi¬ 
ness that is of nation-wide importance, and that can only be managed prudently, 
safely, and efficiently by those whom long service has made experts with regard 
to it, then it will be worse than useless to present further facts or arguments 
here. 

F. C. Ainsworth, 

The Adjutant General. 

February 3 , 1912 . 

It will be noticed that nowhere in the foregoing memorandum of 
the Chief of Staff to The Adjutant General does it appear that the 
Secretary of War is mentioned or cited for authority for anything 
except the directions to The Adjutant General to submit his opinion 
to the office of the General Staff on the proposition to abolish the 
muster roll; and if he should regard any portion or portions of the 
proposition as inadvisable or impracticable, to submit a statement 
“ in every case showing in detail wherein the matter is considered 
inadvisable or impracticable.” The authorship of this proposi¬ 
tion was nowhere disclosed, nor was any authority for its prepara¬ 
tion stated or even suggested. Certainly the most careful reading of 
this memorandum does not in any way connect the Secretary of War 
with it, as its author or even its sponsor, and no remarks which were 
made upon it by The Adjutant General can be tortured into impugn¬ 
ing “the fairness and intelligence of the Secretary of War,” unless 
the person giving them such a meaning was searching for a pretense 
upon which to found a charge against Gen. Ainsworth. 

It will also be observed that Gen. Ainsworth, who must have been 
in a position to know what he was talking about, prefaced his remarks 
by a statement to the effect that he understood that the proposition 
was formulated by two relatively young officers, whose lack of prac¬ 
tical experience and consequent unfitness to deal with the subject in 
question Gen. Ainsworth made apparent by giving their respective 
service records. The Secretary of War chose to ignore this fact in 
his letter of February 14, but a careful examination of this paper 
shows beyond doubt that all of Gen. Ainsworth’s subsequent criticism 
of this proposition to abolish the muster roll was based upon this 
understanding as to its authorship, and that this understanding was 
correct is evidenced by the fact that neither the Secretary of War 
nor anyone else has questioned its correctness in any of the papers 
submitted to this committee. The assertions of the Secretary of War 
as to the meaning and intention of Gen. Ainsworth are without foun¬ 
dation, so far as disclosed by these papers. 

But regardless of the authorship of the proposition to abolish the 
muster roll, it is evident that Gen. Ainsworth based all of his re¬ 
marks with regard to it, and very properly, upon the manifest truth 
that no one who is ignorant of the purposes for which muster rolls 
are used in the office in which they are deposited and preserved, 
viz, the office of The Adjutant General of the Army, can possibly be 
competent judges as to the advisability of discontinuing or modify¬ 
ing that important record. And your committee, recognizing the 
force of the reasons given by Gen.' Ainsworth for the preservation 
of the muster roll, hopes that his fearless and honest advocacy of 
what he believes to be, and in fact proves to be, most important 
to the Government and to the people, while costly to him, has not 
been in vain, and that this proposition will not be consummated. 



14 RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 

Your committee is unable to conceive how it could possibly involve 
any reflection on the conduct, attainments, or motives of any person, 
to point out, as Gen. Ainsworth did, in direct, forcible, but perfectly 
respectful terms, that those who have no practical knowledge of the 
subject in question are incompetent to deal with it. Except as stated 
below, all the remarks quoted by the Secretary of War from the 
memorandum of The Adjutant General, dated February 3, 1912, are 
of this character. If they are read in their proper context it will 
be seen at once that they refer only to the inexperienced proponents 
of the proposition under discussion. They do not furnish the slight¬ 
est justification for the accusations made by the Secretary of War 
against Gen. Ainsworth. 

If officers of the Army who are requested to give their opinion 
upon subjects with which they are familiar, and with which they deal 
every day, can not do so in a perfectly free, frank, and respectful 
manner, then the Army is in bad case. If men are liable to be 
suspended from duty and threatened with court-martial for being 
honest in the expression of opinions called for by proper authority, 
then will the Army become a collection of sycophants, and not what 
the American people believe it to be, a body of brave men, fearless 
in the discharge of duty, honest in their dealings with their superiors, 
and eminently qualified to maintain in peace and war the dignity 
and honor of the country. 

Your committee wishes to point out, that in submitting, in com¬ 
pliance with the call therefor, the detailed statement of his reasons 
for regarding the proposition to abolish the muster roll as inad¬ 
visable and impracticable, Gen. Ainsworth, after pointing out the 
difficulty of formulating any statement that would carry conviction 
to any one so unmindful of consequences, or so uninformed as to the 
needs of the Government and the public, as seriously to propose to 
abolish the muster roll, said that he submitted the statement “ in the 
confident expectation that when other, if not wiser, counsels shall 
prevail and after experience with the proposed plan or any similar 
plan shall have shown the inevitable evil effects thereof , this state¬ 
ment will receive the consideration that may not be given to it 
now.” This temperate and entirely respectful expression of a belief 
that, even if Gen. Ainsworth’s statement should not be regarded as 
convincing by those now advocating the plan in question, experience 
with that or any similar plan would eventually convince others that 
the views set forth in that statement are correct, has been cited by the 
Secretary of War in support of his charges against Gen. Ainsworth. 
The unfairness of that citation and the utter baselessness of any accu¬ 
sation predicated upon it are evidences of the inability of the Secre¬ 
tary of War to do justice to Gen. Ainsworth. 

Gen. Ainsworth, in pointing out the illegality of the proposed 
evasion of the twelfth article of war said that, “ the adoption of 
this proposal could, hardly fail to be regarded generally as a mere 
subterfuge of a kind that would be scorned by honorable men in 
any of The relations of private life and that would be most dis¬ 
creditable to a great department of the Government in its manage¬ 
ment of the affairs of the nation.” To a plain man this was a 
warning, and was intended as such, and as advice, and was a plain 
statement of the construction likely to be placed upon the measure. 
It was evidently made in compliance with the requirement that the 


RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 15 

Adjutant General should state in detail wherein he regarded any 
feature of the proposed plan as undesirable. The committee, after 
examining these papers and this letter of the Secretary, wonders 
how it was possible to concoct such an avalanche of charges with 
such small material. 

^ In order to bolster up his accusations against Gen. Ainsworth the 
Secretary of TV ar quotes in liis letter from another memorandum of 
Gen. Ainsworth as evidence that he had, by “insinuation” charged 
the Chief of Staff with improper motives. That memorandum is 
one that was addressed to the Chief of Staff by Gen. Ainsworth on 
September 5, 1911, in response to a communication from that office 
dated August 30, 1911. and is as follows, the part printed in black¬ 
face type being the extracts quoted by the Secretary of War: 


[Memorandum relative to the assignment of officers to command the five general recruit 

depots.] 

War Department, 

The Adjutant General’s Office. 

Inasmuch as the subject of tlis memorandum is one of great importance, 
involving as it does grave questions of policy on the part of the War Depart¬ 
ment, and the interests of the whole Army as affected by and through the 
general recruiting service. The Adjutant General deems it incumbent upon 
him to present the subject somewhat fully in this paper and to request, as he 
hereby does, that the paper be submitted to the Secretary of War himself for 
decision of the questions at issue. 

Following is a copy of the communication that raised the subject to which 
this memorandum relates: 


[Memorandum for The Adjutant General.] 

• 

War Department, 

Office of the Chief of Staff, 

Washington, August 30, 1911. 

It is necessary to provide for the assignment of some of the additional 
colonels at the present time on the Army Register. 

The Secretary of War directs That Col. E. P. Andrus remain at present in 
command of the recruiting depot at Fort Logan, and that colonels from the 
accompanying list be selected to command Fort Slocum,. Columbus Barracks, 
Jefferson Barracks, and Fort McDowell. 

For the five recruiting depots it is desired that selections be made from the 
following list, so that two of the depots will be commanded by colonels of 
Cavalry, one by a colonel of Field Artillery, and two by colonels of Infantry. 
A list of the available colonels from which these selections are to be made are: 


Cavalry: 

Hatfield. 

Bishop. 

Day. 

Steever. 

Dodd. 

Hunter. 

Field Artillery: 
Foster. 

Van Deusen. 
Infantry: 

Pitcher. 


Infantry—Continued. 
T. F. Davis. 
Booth. 

Paulding. 

Reynolds. 

Williams. 

Chubb. 

Wilson. 

Getty. 

Lassiter. 

Terrett. 

Jackson. 


Col. William T. Wood, heretofore ordered home from the Philippines for 
duty as commanding officer, recruit depot, Jefferson Barracks, will be assigned 
to duty with a regiment, owing to his long detached service. 

An early recommendation from The Adjutant General for these details is 


desired. 


Leonard Wood, 
Major General, Chief of Staff. 


16 RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 

It will be seen that in order to provide for some of the colonels that were 
rendered superfluous by the legislation that was embodied in the last Army 
appropriation bill in response to repeated and persistent appeals made to Con¬ 
gress for additional officers and for a rearrangement of rank it is now proposed 
to assign four colonels to command an equal number of general recruit dej>ots, 
and that these four shall be selected from a very restricted list of colonels 
who are said to be “ available.” Undoubtedly it is desirable and certainly it 
will be prudent to afford some reasonable employment for officers of all grades 
who have become or may hereafter become supernumerary by this so assidu¬ 
ously sought legislation, but it is submitted that this purpose should not be 
accomplished by any measure that is likely to decrease the efficiency of the 
general recruiting service that is of such vital importance to the Army. 

From the earliest times The Adjutant General’s Office has been charged with 
the management of the general recruiting service, and it doubtless will be 
admitted that The Adjutant General and his office are more fully advised as to 
the needs of that service and the difficulties that beset it than others can pos¬ 
sibly be. It may be said without fear of successful contradiction that there is 
no ordinary military duty, including that of service in the General Staff Corps, 
that is of greater importance than the command of one of the big depots at 
which recruits are received from many different stations, enlisted or rejected, 
examined, clothed, and otherwise prepared for service, instructed in accordance 
with a uniform method adopted after conference with and approved by depot 
commanders, the Inspector General, and the present Chief of Staff, again 
examined by medical officers and inspected by the depot commander, and finally, 
if found qualified, shipped to the organizations in which they are to serve. 

To insure the faithful and efficient discharge of the many and varied duties 
that are essential to the successful operation of a modern recruit depot, there is 
required on the part of the commander a combination of qualities of mind and 
heart that is not often found in one man either in military or civil life. He 
should be energetic, alert, ready to devote time and attention to the smallest as 
well as the largest details of the work under his charge, fond of that work, pos¬ 
sessed of much self-control, patient but firm, just, a good judge of men, sympa¬ 
thetic where sympathy may well be bestowed but a strict disciplinarian when 
occasion requires, and, last but not least, in person, bearing, and dress he should 
be a soldierly exemplar not only for the commissioned officers and enlisted men 
who form the permanent garrison of the depot, but also for the-multitude of 
young soldiers who come under his command at the formative and most critical 
period of their Army service. It is no disparagement to the many excellent 
colonels in the line of the Army to say that but very few of them can be expected 
to measure up to such a standard, and that far fewer, if any, who even approxi¬ 
mate to it are to be found on any such restricted list as that which has been 
offered or suggested by the Chief of Staff. It will not be easy to find the men 
best fitted to command these depots even if the whole commissioned list of the 
Army is thrown open to selection, and it will be simply impossible if the choice 
is restricted, as is now proposed, to a few colonels for whom employment has 
not been found elsewhere or whom it is not desired to employ elsewhere. 

The officers whom it is now proposed to remove from or to supersede in the 
command of depots are Col. Murray, at Columbus Barracks; Maj. Dugan, at 
Fort Slocum; and Maj. McGlachlin, at Fort McDowell. These officers have 
made their depots models of what recruit depots should be and have demon¬ 
strated that they possess in a high degree that rare combination of qualifications 
that marks the efficient and successful depot commander and administrator. To 
say nothing of the consideration that they have earned by their enthusiastic 
devotion to their work and the ability with which they have performed it, it is 
not believed to be in the interest of the public good to relieve or supersede them 
at the present time in the manner proposed or for the reason given for the 
proposal. 

None of those depot commanders appears on the long list recently prepared of 
officers who have had an excessive amount of detached service, but, on the con¬ 
trary, the official records show that all of them have had long service with 
troops. 

Col. Murray has been about four years at Columbus Barracks, but he is an 
unassigned colonel, and to replace him by the detail of another officer of the 
same rank, whether assigned or unassigned, would not at all diminish the 
number of superfluous or unemployed colonels, so that some other reason for 
displacing him must be sought. It can not be urged as such a reason that he 
has had an excessive amount of detached service, for he has not. In his entire 


RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 17 


commissioned service of over 34 years lie lias been detached from his regiment 
considerably less than 10 years, but he has been with his regiment or in com¬ 
mand of troops elsewhere for over 2S years. It may be well to compare this 
record of service with certain other similar records that are given elsewhere in 
this paper. 

Maj. Dugan has been less than four years at Fort Slocum, and Maj. Mc- 
Glachlin has only been about two years at Fort McDowell. After the splendid 
work that they have done in building up those depots as commanders of them 
it would be as unjust to them as it would be unnecessary to retain them in 
subordinate positions. In fairness to them they should be relieved, if officers 
senior to them in rank are to be assigned to those depots. But while such a 
procedure, if followed by the assignment of colonels to command those depots, 
would reduce the number of superfluous colonels by two, it would increase by 
one the number of unassigned majors for whom employment would have to be 
sought. 

Col. Murray and Maj. Dugan were so unfortunate as to be compelled not long 
ago to appear before the Committee on Military Affairs of the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives for examination with regard to a bill that proposed to increase 
the enlistment period of the Army to five years. In response to questions ad¬ 
dressed to them by the committee, they expressed views that were at variance 
with views subsequently expressed to the same committee by the Chief of Staff. 
Considerable publicity, for which Col. Murray and Maj. Dugan were in no wise 
responsible, was given by the press to this difference of opinion. And doubtless 
there are those who, not knowing or not believing that the Chief of Staff is too 
high-minded and conscientious to permit his official action to be influenced by 
such a matter, will be swift to conclude, if these two officers are relieved or 
superseded now, that the Chief of Staff is endeavoring to punish them because 
they gave testimony that may be regarded as damaging to his own, and that 
the solicitude now manifested in behalf of a few superfluous colonels, with none 
manifested in behalf of superfluous lieutenant colonels, is merely a pretext for 
a movement whose object is to annoy or humilitate certain officers connected 
with the recruiting service and to discredit the management of that service. 

Additional ground for such a conclusion is to be found in a recent newspaper 
announcement, likely to be regarded as inspired, in which the proposed assign¬ 
ment of colonels to command recruit depots is coupled with a statement that a 
special effort is to be made to recruit regiments in the Philippines up to their 
authorized strength, thus suggesting that the vacancies in the ranks of those 
regiments are chargeable to the present management of the recruiting service, 
and suppressing the well-known fact that those vacancies are almost entirely 
due to the policy adopted without consulting The Adjutant General and since 
reported by the commanding general of the Maneuver Division to have been 
ill-advised, under which for many weeks all obtainable Infantry recruits, many 
hundreds in number, and all without any preliminary training whatever, were 
rushed to the Mexican border to fill certain regiments far beyond their normal 
strength, with the inevitable result that vacancies occurring in other regiments 
stationed in the Philippines and elsewhere could not then be filled, although 
in the ordinary course of events they soon will be filled now that the abnormal 
diversion of recruits before mentioned has ceased. 

Of course, any such conclusion as that referred to here would be erroneous, but 
it is believed to be the part of wisdom not to give Congress, the public at large, or 
the Army any ground upon which to base it, at least at the present time. 

It will be seen by the memorandum quoted at the beginning of this paper 
that it is intended to revoke the order assigning- Col. Wood to the command 
of the depot at Jefferson Barracks, and to assign him to a regiment because 
of his long detached service. The intention thus expressed seems to require 
some comment, although The Adjutant General has been advised informally 
that the Chief of Staff has indicated his willingness to have Col. Wood, who is 
now en route from the Philippine Islands, assigned to the command of Columbus 
Barracks if it shall be found on his arrival in the United States that he desires 
that assignment. 

The last commanding officer at Jefferson Barracks was Col. Mann. He had 
been there a comparatively short time when he was relieved without any 
inquiry as to the wishes of The Adjutant General in the matter, or as to 
whether the summary relief of Col. Mann would or would not be detrimental 
to the interests of the recruiting service. The Adjutant General was also 
directed to nominate a colonel of Infantry to succeed Col. Mann. 


H. Rept. 508, 62-2-2 


18 RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


When The Adjutant General was called upon to name a colonel of Infantry 
to succeed Col. Mann as commander of the recruit depot at Jefferson Barracks, 
he named Col. Wood, who was then serving with his regiment in the Philippine 
Islands and with whom, consequently, no communication with regard to the 
matter was practicable. This nomination was made because, first, The Adju¬ 
tant General knew him to be especially well qualified for the peculiar duties 
of the position; and, second, because his detail would probably save a very 
valuable officer from retirement, it being regarded as certain that if he should 
be ordered before a retiring board he would be found permanently disqualified 
by deafness for the command of a regiment, whereas he can very well discharge 
the duties, largely administrative, that pertain to the command of a recruit 
depot. 

It is true that Col. Wood has had considerable detached service, he having 
had 14 years and 10 months of such service out of a total commissioned service 
of over 34 years. Because of that fact, he would not have been nominated 
for the command of a recruit depot if it had not also been a fact that he is 
disabled to such an extent that it is manifestly in the interest of the service 
to permit some other colonel to take his place in command of a regiment, and to 
assign him to other duty for the full and efficient discharge of which his 
disability will not disqualify him at all. 

Before Col Wood is held to be unavailable for assignment to the command 
of a recruit depot because of his previous detached service, it will be both 
advisable and instructive to compare his record in this respect, as well as the 
records of the other depot commanders, with the records of many detached offi¬ 
cers whose names are borne on the recently prepared lists of more than 270 
officers with excessive amounts of detached service, among the number being 
certain young officers recently assigned to duty in the office of the Chief of 
Staff. One of those officers, a captain, has had but a little over 2 years’ service 
with his regiment out of a total commissioned service of a little over 14 years. 
Another officer, a captain with the same length of service, has served but a little 
over 4 years with his regiment since he was commissioned a second lieutenant. 
.Another captain, with 12^ years of commissioned service, has had less than 3J 
years of service with troops. Still another captain, with a little over 10 years 
of commissioned service, has served only about 51 years with his regiment. A 
lieutenant colonel, who has had about 30 years of commissioned service, has 
had a total service of less than 12 years with his regiment, none of that service 
being rendered in the grade of major or lieutenant colonel. During the 12 
years ending July 31, 1911, he had been on detached service for over 10 years, 
and he is still on such service. All of these officers are on duty in the office of the 
Chief of Staff, and immediately under his eye, so that their cases must be well 
known to him. Many other similar cases might easily be cited if it were neces¬ 
sary to do so. 

If able-bodied young captains and other officers such as those before men¬ 
tioned, to say nothing of others whose names are borne on the recently pub¬ 
lished lists of more than 270 officers with records of excessive detached service, 
can be regarded as available for continuance on staff duty, surely a veteran and 
partially disabled colonel who, without any request or suggestion on his part, 
has been ordered from the Philippine Islands to Jefferson Barracks, and is now 
on his way there, may well be permitted to comply with his order. The revoca¬ 
tion of his order and his assignment to a regiment would effect no decrease in 
the number of additional or detached colonels, and his assignment to any other 
recruit depot would accomplish nothing whatever beyond deranging his plans 
and defeating a recommendation made by The .Adjutant General, not of his 
own volition, but in compliance with an order to make such a recommendation. 

It will be impossible to obtain the men best fitted for the highly important 
duty of commanding the recruit depots if selection is to be restricted to any 
such limited list as that presented by the Chief of Staff, or even if the entire 
list of colonels is to be open to selection. And there is no good reason why 
selection should be limited to either of those lists. It is just as desirable to 
provide suitable employment for additional or detached lieutenant colonels as it 
is to provide places for additional or detached colonels. A general recruit 
depot affords a much more appropriate command for a lieutenant colonel than 
for a colonel, and suitable commanders are much more likely to be found among 
the younger men in the lower grade than among the older men in the higher 
grade. 


RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 19 


For the reasons hereinbefore stated, The Adjutant General requests that.the 
memorandum of the Chief of Staff of August 30, 1911, be reconsidered, and 
recommends: 

(1) That Maj. Dugan remain in command of the Fort Slocum depot until 
the expiration of his four-year tour on January 19 next. 

(2) That Col. Murray remain in command of the Columbus Barracks depot 
at least until January 3 next. 

(3) That Col. Wood’s assignment to the Jefferson Barracks depot stand. 

(4) That Maj. McGlachlin remain in command of the Fort McDowell depot 
at least until June 30 next. 

(3) That hereafter commanders of the general recruit depots be selected 
from among the colonels and lieutenant colonels of the mobile army. 

F. C. Ainsworth, 

The Adjutant General. 

To the Chief of Staff. 

September 5, 1913. 


[Memorandum for the Secretary of War.] 

War Department, 

Office of the Chief of Staff, 

Washington, September 8, 1911. 

Subject : The attitude of The Adjutant General in the matter of assigning officers to 

recruit depots. 

3. It is specifically provided in law that the Chief of Staff, under the direc¬ 
tion of the Secretary of War, shall have supervision over The Adjutant Gen¬ 
eral’s Department and over all troops of the line and staff corps. This includes 
the recruiting service and recruit depots. The Adjutant General is a sub¬ 
ordinate officer of the War Department, to whom, by orders and regulations, 
certain duties are assigned, among them the recruiting service. He is expected 
to perform these duties conscientiously and loyally in accordance with the 
policy and wishes of his superiors. For him to set up standards of his own 
and to insist upon working for them without regard to the policy and wishes 
of his superiors is contrary to good order and military discipline. It was to 
prevent this that, through the efforts of Mr. Root, Congress created the General 
Staff and made the office of the Chief of Staff the coordinating and supervisory 
bureau of the War Department. 1 

2. The memorandum of The Adjutant General is an arraignment and criti¬ 
cism of the action of his superiors, on three principal counts: First, certain 
legislation enacted at the last session of Congress; second, the length of de¬ 
tached service of certain officers now on duty in the office of the Chief of Staff; 
and, third, the failure of the Chief of Staff to consult him in the matter of 
sending recruits to the Maneuver Division and of relieving Col. Mann from 
recruiting duty. None of these have any connection with the question of the 


1 Secretary Root in his statement to the House Military Committee in the hearing on 
the hill (S. 4300, 56th Cong.) which is now the law respecting the constitution of vari¬ 
ous staff department, said : 

“ It is not in human nature that the men in each permanent staff corps should not 
regard their own work and their own powers as being of the greatest importance. They 
are ail here in Washington; they are all in immediate contact with Senators, with Mem¬ 
bers of the House, with members of the Cabinet, and with the President, and year by 
year, little by little, a line here in this law and a paragraph there in that law, the power 
of these staff corps has been built up and the power of the line of the Army has been 
decreased until the evil of multiple command in our Army, taking away responsibility and 
power from the men in command of the geographical and tactical organizations, taking 
away power from them and therefore relieving them from responsibility, is producing a 
system which is not of the highest efficiency and is not such as we ought to have when 
we come to the test of war. And that will go on in years to come as it has gone on in the 
past, unless you take the step which seems to me to be fundamental, to lie at the bottom 
of all improvements in the efficiency of the organization—break up this separation be¬ 
tween the staff corps here in Washington (who are the only ones heard by the Members 
of Congress) and the part of the Army on the frontier and in the Philippines and far 
away doing the work ; break up the separation between them and we have but one inter¬ 
est coming to Congress, and that the interest of the Army as a whole and its general 
efficiencv. 

“ I believe this provision is fundamental and essential, not simply to improve the 
organization as it stands, but to prevent the constant tendency in the wrong direction 
continuing in years to come.” 




20 


RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


detail of colonels to command recruit depots, which was the only matter referred 
to The Adjutant General for remark. 

3. The legislation referred to is the so-called additional or extra officers’ bill 
and the provision for the readjustment of rank. 

4. With reference to the first bill: 

The Adjutant General states that the bill was enacted “ in response to 
repeated and persistent appeals made to Congress.” This is true. Legislation 
to provide extra officers for detached service has been agitated since the begin¬ 
ning of the Army. 

Washington in 1780, President Adams in 1798, and John C. Calhoun (Secretary 
of War) in 1820, addressed communications to Congress upon this subject. On 
February 13, 1837, and 72 years later, January 7, 1909, the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives passed resolutions calling upon the Secretary of War for information 
as to the number of officers on detached service. 

The present agitation for extra officers began in 1904, when Mr. Root tried to 
secure legislation authorizing the employment of retired officers in certain kinds 
of duty and limiting the use of active officers on detached service. The extra- 
officers bill in its final form was urged by Mr. Taft when he was Secretary of 
War. In this he was supported by President Roosevelt. Each Secretary of 
War in turn since Mr. Taft has urged the bill. It was enacted March 3, 1911, 
Congress reducing the number of extra officers from the 612 asked for to 200. 
In order to have a sufficient number of officers on duty with troops, and at the 
same time meet the proper demands made upon the War Department for the 
detail of officers at institutions of learning, for duty with the militia, etc., it 
will be necessary to have at least the 612 asked for. 

5. With reference to the second bill (readjustment of rank) : 

This measure was recommended to Congress by the preceding Chief of Staff, 
Gen. Bell, in March, 1908, and by the Secretary of War, Mr. Taft. Subsequently 
the bill was not made a War Department measure, but an officer personally 
interested in the bill (Maj. W. C. Brown) was given permission to advocate it. 
The bill being referred to the War Department for report, Secretary Dickinson, 
upon my recommendation, returned it saying he had no objection to its passage, 
provided its benefits were limited to the active list. 

6. The Adjutant General states that the enactment of the additional or 
extra officers bill rendered certain colonels “ supernumerary ” or superfluous. 
This is true, but not in the sense implied by The Adjutant General. The pur¬ 
pose of the bill was to provide extra or supernumerary officers who in time of 
peace would perform the detached service required of the Army by law and 
regulations and who, in time of war, would be available for service with Volun¬ 
teers or with the Regular Establishment. 

When the report was made to Congress in 1S37 there were 1S3 officers de¬ 
tached. When Mr. Root complained of it in 1904 there were 423 detached. 
When the report was made to Congress in 1909 there were 734 detached. No 
better illustration can be given of the growth of the detached-service list than 
that the number of officers upon recruiting duty (under The Adjutant General) 
has increased from 58 active and 1 retired officer in 1904 to 119 active and 18 
retired officers in 1910, although the strength of the Army fixed by Congress 
has remained practically the same. 

7. The drain upon the line of the Army to furnish all of these details was 
very great, and yet in seeking relief it was essential that nothing should be 
done to further retard the already slow promotion to the upper grades of the 
Army. Presidents Roosevelt and Taft and Secretaries Root, Taft. Wright, and 
Dickinson have urged upon Congress the enactment of a bill known as the 
elimination bill, the principal purpose of which is to accelerate promotion in 
the Army. 

At the present time the Navy has, proportionately, twice as many officers 
in the higher grades as the Army; yet there continued to be a demand for 
younger officers in command rank, and there is now before Congress a bill, 
heartily indorsed by the President in a special message, the purpose of which 
is to further accelerate Navy promotion. 

The Adjutant General himself in his memorandum complains that the colonels 
are too old as a class to form good material from which to select recruit- 
depot commanders. 

8. In order not to retard promotion, it was provided that the 200 extra officers 
should be distributed in the several grades in the same proportion as was now 
provided by law for the whole Army. They were divided as follows: Eight 
colonels, 9 lieutenant colonels, 27 majors, 79 captains, 77 first lieutenants 


RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 21 


It. is true that there was not so great a demand for extra colonels and lieu¬ 
tenant colonels as there was for extra captains, but still there were in fact 
more officers of the grades of colonel and lieutenant colonel on detached service 
prior to the passage of the extra officers bill than were authorized by that 
hill. The only cause for an excess of colonels and lieutenant colonels is the 
provision for the readjustment of rank, and this measure, as is above indi¬ 
cated, was not a War Department measure. All of this was fully set forth 
in reports and in hearings upon the legislation. The fact that this procedure 
did not have the sympathy or support of The Adjutant General was well known 
both before and after the legislation was secured. 

9. Assuming, however, that for the purpose of carrying out the plans of the 
President and the Secretary in this matter, it was necessary to find places for 
so-called extra or supernumerary colonels, what more appropriate duty could 
he found than the command of a large recruiting depot? The Adjutant General 
himself has selected two colonels. Why should he not select all colonels, when 
officers of that grade are available, instead of insisting upon having majors 
when officers of that grade are not available? Why should he not conform 
himself to the general policy of his superiors and to the restrictions placed by 
them upon other bureau chiefs? The recruit depots are important commands 
in time of peace and entirely appropriate to the rank of colonel. In time of 
war they would be of still greater importance. 

Heretofore the troops have had to stand the loss of their field officers to 
provide the recruit depots with commanding officers. Now, when Cougress has 
specifically provided 200 extra officers for detached service, and among them 
8 colonels, why should not 5 of these colonels be assigned to these depots? 
In order, however, that The Adjutant General might not be Tmited to the 
list of unassigned colonels, all unassigned colonels who were considered to be 
in any way unfitted for service were eliminated from the list presented to him, 
and to the list were added a considerable number of the best co’onels on the 
active list. 

10. While it is admitted that the qualifications required of an oiiicer to com¬ 
mand successfully a large recruit depot are those of an cilieient officer, they 
are not greater than those required of a regimental commander, who is charged 
with one of the most important duties in the service, namely, the training and 
preparation of a regiment for war, whereas the duties of a commander of a 
recruit depot are largely limited to the preliminary training of recruits, and 
are not to he compared in importance with those of a regimental commander. 

It is a commendable spirit in all bureau chiefs that they want to get the 
best men in the Army to perform their own particular work, and it is an 
excusable trait that they set themselves up as the judge of who these best men 
are. But it does not follow that each bureau chief should have ah unlimited 
pick over the whole Army for his own purposes in total disregard of the 
interests of others. 

11. Passing to the second question, namely, the excessho detached service 
of some of the officers on duty in the office of the Chief of Staff. 

It is an unfortunate thing, yet a fact, that the tendency pointed out in the 
preceding paragraph for bureau chiefs and general officers to pick over the 
Army in selecting their assistants has resulted in many of the best officers 
being constantly on detached service. There is nothing discreditable in this 
either to the officers themselves or to those who wish their services. The de¬ 
tached service list is a necessary and an unavoidable evil. It has always been 
recognized as an evil, and ever since the time of Washington and Adams, as 
above pointed out, efforts have been made to eradicate or reduce it. There is 
a constant conflict between regimental commanders on the one hand and those 
who control the detached service on the other. As bad as it is in time of 
peace, it is worse in time of war. Washington complained of it from the bat¬ 
tle field, and Gen. Upton in his work on military policy records an instance 
of a second lieutenant, graduate of West Point, who was wanted by the State 
of Ohio during the Civil War to command a volunteer regiment as its colonel. 
The application was turned down by the War Department, because of the 
excessive number of officers on detached service. 

Congress has once or twice attempted to investigate the matter. Many bills 
to regulate it have been introduced, and some have been supported by the War 
Department. There was one pending when the last regular session of Congress 
closed. 

12. The officers of the General Staff Corps are not selected by the Chief of 
Staff, but by a board of general officers, who are sworn to base their selection 


22 RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


solely upon the records of efficiency established by the officers concerned. The 
fact that some of the officers so selected had already had “ excessive detached 
service” is a matter over which the board has no control; nor would it be fair 
to the General Staff Corps or to the officers concerned if the previous good 
work of these officers, resulting in their assignments to important detached 
duty, should be used to discriminate against their selection for the General 
Staff Corps. Moreover, a General Staff detail takes precedence over all other 
classes of duty, and General Staff officers are selected without regard to the 
particular duty being performed at the date of selection. However, the Gen¬ 
eral Staff Corps is the only staff corps which is protected by law in every grade 
from excessive detached service and against perpetuation in office. It is pro¬ 
vided by law that no officer of whatever grade, including the Chief of Staff, 
shall serve more than four years continuously on the General Staff, and no 
such officer shall be redetailed without an intermission of two years. In the 
other staff corps this law is not applicable above the grade of major. Every 
officer now serving in the General Staff Corps has been properly selected in 
accordance with the law and the regulations to serve a tour of four years. 

13. The principal objection to having officers on duty in the.War Department 
who have been long separated from duty with troops is that such officers 
become hidebound, wholly unfamiliar with the needs of the Army, and regard 
the situation from the narrow standpoint of their own little sphere. There is 
no possible danger of this in the office of the Chief of Staff or among the offi¬ 
cers of the General Staff, since such officers are selected from those serving 
on every class of duty and can not possibly remain in office more than four 
years continuously. But in the case of the permanent officers of the Staff Corps 
it is different, especially so in the case of The Adjutant General. The present 
incumbent came to Washington in December. 1SS6, and for 18 years was en¬ 
gaged in carding and indexing the dead records of the Civil War. a work which 
was most thoroughly and efficiently done. In 1904 he became The Military 
Secretary, and in this capacity took up the work formerly performed by The 
Adjutant General of the Army. In 1907 his title was changed to The Adjutant 
General. During this entire period he has not been in direct contact with 
troops. I am reliably informed that he has never even visited one of the large 
recruit depots since they have been established. He is, in my opinion, wholly 
unfamiliar, from the standpoint of the experience and knowledge which comes 
from service with troops, with the needs or.requirements of the Army. 

14. With reference to the third count, namely, the failure of the Chief of 
Staff to confer with him upon matters affecting the recruiting service. 

It is true that he has not been consulted—that is, recently. Every bureau 
chief in the War Department is freely consulted upon every matter affecting 
his respective department except The Adjutant General. The reason that he 
has not been consulted is that he has made it impossible for the Chief of Staff 
to have any relations with him other than in writing. The last interview 
was of such a character as to render this course necessary unless severe dis¬ 
ciplinary measures were to be resorted to. Since the establishment of the 
General Staff friction between The Adjutant General and the Chief of Staff 
has been almost constant. 

Knowing the relations which had existed in the past between the Office of 
the Chief of Staff and the Office of The Adjutant General, I made every effort 
to go out of my way to concede to his views and to consult him upon every 
matter that could possibly be construed as coming within his province. I soon 
found that this was of no avail;, that he was absolutely unyielding; and that 
it would be his way or no way with him. Under these* circumstances, for the 
past several months such business as I have had to transact with The Adjutant 
General himself I have transacted in writing, oftentimes to the embarrassment 
of this office and to the hindrance of the expeditious handling of public business. 

15. In conclusion I would respectfully invite the attention of the Secretary 
of War to the character of this communication, which constitutes, in my opin¬ 
ion, an act of gross official insubordination and discourtesy, and shows a lack of 
that high character and soldierly spirit which should' be the dstinguishing 
qualities of any officer holding the important position of The Adjutant General 

Very respectfully, 

L. W., 

Major General , Chief of Staff. 

The assertion made by the Secretary of War that in the foregoing 
document Gen. Ainsworth, “by insinuation, charged the Chief of 


RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 23 

Staff with improper motives,” etc., is astonishing. The effort made 
to convict Gen. Ainsworth of improper conduct needed bolstering 
up, indeed, when it was deemed necessary to so flagrantly distort his 
meaning, as was done in this case, for an examination by even a 
prejudiced mind of those parts of this document quoted and relied 
upon by the Secretary of War will convince anyone that, far from 
containing anything in the shape of an “ insinuation ” against the 
Chief of Staff, they embody nothing but an open and straightforward 
statement of the construction that many persons would be likely to 
place upon the action proposed by him and timely and certainly not 
unfriendly advice against taking the action proposed. 

Gen. Ainsworth said that “doubtless there are those who,not know¬ 
ing or not believing that the Chief of Staff is too high minded and 
conscientious to permit his official action to be influenced by such a 
matter, will be swift to conclude, if those two officers are relieved or 
superseded now, that the Chief of Staff is endeavoring to punish 
them for giving testimony that may be regarded as damaging to his 
own.” Your committee can not see in this frank statement of the 
truth any ground for complaint, and Gen. Ainsworth removed all 
possibility of doubt as to his meaning and purpose by explicitly 
stating that “ of course any such conclusion as that refen'ed to here 
would he erroneous , but it is believed to be the part of wisdom not 
to give Congress, the public at large, or the Army any ground upon 
which to base it, at least at the present time.” 

Your committee, with a pretty full knowledge of all the circum¬ 
stances surrounding legislation undertaken by it since the beginning 
of the Congress, can only regret that the advice given above was not 
followed. The action taken by the War Department in the cases 
mentioned by Gen. Ainsworth and orders issued to other officers have 
compelled this committee to conclude that it will not, under the pres¬ 
ent regime in the War Department, be able to obtain the frank and 
free expression of their opinions from officers of the Army to which 
Congress is entitled when it is trying to shape legislation not only 
for the Army but for the country. 

On September 19, 1911, in response to a personal letter from Gen. 
Ainsworth, which seems to have been written on August 30. no copy 
having been furnished, the Secretary of War then addressed to Gen. 
Ainsworth a letter which he marked “ personal.” but which he now 
chooses to parade as “ a personal letter of warning.” and is as fol¬ 
lows, the portion printed in black-face type being that which the 
Secretary quotes in his letter of February 14. 1912. and describes 
therein as a “warning” in respect to the conduct of Gen. Ainsworth 
in submitting his memorandum of September 5. 1911, hereinbefore 
quoted in full: 

Personal. 1 

Huntington, Long Island, N. Y.. September 19, 1911. 
Maj. Gen. F. C. Ainsworth, 

The Adjutant General, U. S. Army, 

War Department, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Gen. Ainsworth : On the receipt of your letter of August 30 I directed 
that the case of Col. Wood’s assignment to Jefferson Barracks be suspended 
until I could speak to the Chief of Staff personally on the subject, which I 
have since done. I have since directed the Chief of Staff to communicate with 
Col. Wood and find out what his own personal preferences were, and I shall be 
guided somewhat in making the assignment by that. 


24 RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


I find that Col. Wood had been assigned to a regiment in the Philippines 
only a year or less ago, and that he accepted the assignment with a good deal 
of personal satisfaction. In view of his record for efficiency, I am not surprised 
at your desire to get the benefit of such a good officer in the recruiting service. 
But on the other hand, I do not think that the usual rule that an officer should 
serve the full two years in the Philippines should have been departed from in 
this case, particularly in view of the officer’s apparent eagerness to perform 
that service. What you say as to Col. Wood’s deafness will also be given 
weight in the final decision. 

I have also read your memorandum to the Chief of Staff, a copy of which 
you sent me with your letter of September 5. I have directed that the other 
assignments recommended by the Chief of Staff be carried out. I find that, 
while there are a number of unassigned colonels in the line, there is an actual 
shortage of majors, and this seems to me a sufficient reason why majors should 
not remain assigned at the recruiting depots. I also find that the list of 
colonels submitted to you by the General Staff for selection to the recruiting 
service was twice as large as the usual number submitted to the other bureaus 
for similar nominations. Under all of these circumstances, while I appreciate 
your zeal and anxiety to make the recruiting service as efficient as possible, 
I do not deem it proper to change in these respects the proposal of the Chief 
of Staff. 


I only wish to add that I greatly regret and reprobate certain passages of your 
memorandum and of the letter which you sent me. Nothing is gained by sus¬ 
pecting or intimating ulterior motives on the part of those with whom we have 
to act in association. In an organzation as large and complex as the War De¬ 
partment it is impossible that every action taken shall seem the wisest possible 
to all the members of that department. Many orders must be given and steps 
taken which to some bureau or some individual seem ill advised and unfor¬ 
tunate. But in such cases and in all cases the President has a right to expect 
that all of the officers of the department will act as a unit, with faith in each 
other’s motives even if they differ as to judgments. In no other way can the 
morale of the Army or its organization be maintained for a moment. 

Very sincerely, yours, 

HENRY L. STIMSON. 


So much of the foregoing letter as is described as a “ warning ” is 
a palpable misrepresentation, for certainly nothing in this letter could 
be construed into warning The Adjutant General with a view to his 
future discipline or punishment; nor was there anything in the memo¬ 
randum referred to in this letter which could have justified the Secre¬ 
tary of War in warning The Adjutant General of the Army. It does 
not appear from the papers furnished whether Gen. Ainsworth ever 
made any response to this extraordinary letter; but as no response to 
it is sent with these papers, the inference is that Gen. Ainsworth did 
not answer it. 

The Secretary of War charges Gen. Ainsworth with habitual “ rude¬ 
ness and ill temper ■’ and as evidences of “ these offenses against pro¬ 
priety ” quotes part of a paragraph from a memorandum made by 
Gen. Ainsworth on March 25, 1911, relative to paper work in the 
Army, and leaves it to be inferred that that memorandum was ad¬ 
dressed to the Secretary of War himself. He suppresses the important 
facts that the memorandum was prepared by The Adjutant General, as 
a subcommittee of the War Department Board on Business Methods, 
consisting of five members, of whom Gen. Ainsworth was one; that 
the memorandum was made for that board, by which it was adopted 
after full consideration, and that the board forwarded it with, and 
as a part of, a formal report to the Secretary of War. Following is 
a copy of that report and of so much of the accompanying memoran¬ 
dum (No. I) of Gen. Ainsworth of March 25, 1911, as is pertinent to 
this discussion. The part of the memorandum in black-face type is 


RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 25 


the extract quoted the Secretary of War in his letter of February 
14,1912: 

Report No. 7. 

War Department Board on Business Methods, 

Washington, May 3, 1911. 

Subject : Paper work in the Army. 

The board met, pursuant to the call of its president, at 3 p. m.t April 22, 1911. 
and took up the consideration of a memorandum submitted by its subcommittee 
“ Relative to recommendations concerning paper work in the Army,” which 
memorandum is hereto attached as Appendix A, which consists of Memorandum 
No. I and Memorandum No. II, dated, respectively, March 25 and April 15, 1911. 

The recommendations and suggestions concerning paper work in the Army 
covered in the memoranda referred to were made in a great number of commu¬ 
nications from the heads of bureaus of the War Department, department com¬ 
manders, and officers of the Army in response to call for such suggestions by 
the War Department. 

The suggestions and recommendations made in the communications referred 
to are briefed in Appendix A, and each suggestion or recommendation is imme¬ 
diately followed by a recommendation of the subcommittee of the board in 
charge of this particular line of inquiry. 

Copies of each of the memoranda which compose Appendix A were submitted 
to the individual members of the board, in order that each of them might have 
an opportunity to give consideration to the matter treated of under the various 
headings or numbers before the meeting of the board. The total number of 
headings is 197 (92 in Memorandum No. I and 105 in Memorandum No. II*. 
All the members of the board, with one exception, expressed their readiness, 
at the meeting of April 22, to reach final conclusions on the matters before it. 

The recommendations and suggestions of the dissenting member were sub¬ 
mitted verbally to the board at its meeting and are embodied in a minority 
report, hereto attached. 

The hoard hating given careful consideration to each of the numbered sug¬ 
gestions shown in Appendix A, to the recommendations of its subcommittee fol¬ 
lowing thereafter, and also to the verbal suggestions of the dissenting member, 
concurs, after full deliberation, in the recommendations made by its subcom¬ 
mittee, for the reasons set forth in detail under each number or title, subject to 
the following remarks: 

As to recommendation No. 29, relative to the discontinuance of Statement 
of financial operations of post exchanges at military posts” (Form No. 102. 
A. G. O.), the board submitted the question of the advisability of discontinuing 
this report to the Inspector General of the Army for an expression of his 
views. The Inspector General agreeing that this report could be discontinued 
without disadvantage to the service, the board concurs in the recommendation 
made (A. G. O. 1746488) that this report lie discontinued. 

As to recommendation No. 33, the board concurs with ils subcommittee that 
general court-martial orders should not be embodied in a separate series when 
issued by the War Department, but is of the opinion that the frequency with 
which general court-martial orders are issued from department headquarters 
warrants their being published by each department in a separate series, and 
suggests the issuance of instructions to department commanders that due 
economy should be used in the printing and distribution of this class of orders, 
so that only such numbers would be printed and distributed as are essential 
and necessary. 

As to recommendation No. 41, to the effect that returns and forms be re¬ 
duced wherever practicable to a standard size, the board is of the opinion that 
efforts now being made by The Adjutant General of the Army along these line> 
should be continued, and that the studies referred to in memorandum No. 1. 
looking to a change in the form of enlistment papers and the reduction of 
the number of signatures thereon, should be continued by The Adjutant Gen- 

era j 

As to recommendation No. 42, the board is of the opinion that columns 
“ Horses ” and “ Pieces of artillery ” should be eliminated from the post 
return. (A. G. O. 1746940.) 

As to recommendations No. 109 and No. 110, referring to the efficiency re¬ 
ports of officers (Form 187, A. G. O.), the recommendation of its subcommittee 
is concurred in. The board is, however, of the opinion that The Adjutant Gen- 


26 


BELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


eral of tlie Army should study the question whether this form can not be com¬ 
bined with the individual service report (Form 26G, A. G. O.) 

A careful examination of the various suggestions made by the bureaus, the 
department commanders, and officers of the Army, embodied in the appendix 
and considered in this report, seems to indicate that a large majority of 
cases there would be neither an increase in the efficiency of the Army nor a 
reduction of paper work connected with administration if they were carried 
out, for a very large number of these suggestions would simply involve the 
transfer of paper work from places where it is now being done to other places, 
and in some cases would, whilst relieving officers of a task, necessitate the 
employment of additional civilian clerks. The suggestions made appear to be, 
to a degree, based upon insufficient knowledge, on the part of the persons mak¬ 
ing them, of the administrative details connected with the operation of the 
great departments and bureaus of the War Department. Some of them, indeed, 
indicate a lack of knowledge of existing laws, and others of the purposes of 
Congress in calling for and requiring certain reports to be rendered for its use. 
The board invites attention to the fact that with very few exceptions the officers 
making recommendations and suggestions for changes in reports or methods of 
conducting the paper work of the Army either give no reasons or very insuffi¬ 
cient ones for the line of action they propose. 

While the board believes that it has recommended in this report a consider¬ 
able reduction in the paper work of the Army, without materially injuring 
administrative efficiency, it is of the opinion that it can not at this time, with¬ 
out injury to the efficient administration of the Army, proceed further in this 
direction or go to the extent in the reduction of paper work which appears to 
seem desirable to the officers making the suggestions upon which it has acted. 
One of the reasons for this conclusion, which may not have been apparent to 
them, is that by reason of the long-continued efforts of the War Department in 
this direction, extending over many years, very material reductions in the paper 
work of the Army have already been made. These reductions have been brought 
about as a result of studies undertaken by other boards convened previous to 
the creation of this board, and as the results of constant efforts, to reduce 
clerical work by the several chiefs of the bureaus of the War Department, who 
are charged with the maintenance of a system of records which, whilst being 
kept in accordance with the law, would be suitable for any conditions and 
available for quick and ready reference. 

F. C. Ainsworth,- 

Major General, United States Army. President. 

The Adjutant General of the Army. 

E. A. Garlington, 

Brigadier General, United States Army, 

The Inspector General . Member. 

W. W. WOTITERSPOON, 

Brigadier General. United States Army, Member. 

John C. Scofield. 

Assistant and Chief Clerk, War Department, Member. 


[Memorandum No. 1.—Relative to recommendations concerning paper work in the Army.] 

War Department, 

The Adjutant General’s Office. 

It is to be observed that the recommendations to which this memorandum 
relate are, in general, for an abbreviated or informal method of correspondence 
with a minimum record thereof and for a reduction in the number of returns, 
rolls, and reports now required. The officers making these recommendations 
naturally deal with the subjects from their own point of view, especial weight 
being given to the consideration of personal convenience. But little or no con¬ 
sideration is given by them to the needs of the War Department, and, in fact, 
such needs probably are not known or are only imperfectly understood by the 
majority of officers. 

It should also be observed that any bureau of the War Department that is 
charged by law or regulations with the obtaining and keeping of certain in¬ 
formation, and that alone knows just what demands are likely to be made 
upon it from all sources for such information, is the best judge," and the only 
competent judge, of the form in which and the extent to which such informa¬ 
tion should be furnished to it. Therefore it may be fairly stated as a general 
principle that the judgment of a chief of bureau as to the necessity for any 



RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 27 


particular report or return, or for any particular item of information required 
to be embodied therein, should have much greater weight than the views of 
officers who have little or no knowledge of the purposes for which the reports, 
returns, or information in question are used in the War Department. 

It is proper to remark that, with a view to reducing the paper work of the 
Army to the lowest possible limit that is consistent with efficiency and accuracy, 
the Adjutant General s Office has been engaged for the past seven years upon 
a continuous and systematic study of the blank forms issued by it to the 
Army and of the reports and returns received by it from the Army. Care¬ 
ful consideration has been given to all suggestions of change, from what¬ 
ever source received, and it has been the uniform practice not to order a new 
supply of any form without first ascertaining whether there is reason to be¬ 
lieve that the form can be amended in any way with benefit to the service. 
As a result of all this many radical changes in forms have been made, with a 
view to convenience and economy of time and labor on the part of those using 
them. It will readily be understood therefore that almost all the changes that 
are now recommended and that are the basis of this memorandum have here¬ 
tofore received full consideration and that but very few of the recommenda¬ 
tions now under consideration present anything that combines the three all- 
important elements of practicability, utility, and safety. It is needless to say 
that any proposed measure that lacks any one of those elements is not a 
measure that should be adopted in the public service. 

* * * * * * 

Returns, muster rolls . and pay rolls: 

(41) Recommendations: That some or all of the present returns, muster- 
rolls, and pay rolls be abolished, consolidated, curtailed, rendered at less fre¬ 
quent intervals, or changed in form. (A. G. O. 17464S8: 1741192; 1739762; 
1736753; 1746995; 1739645; 1743543-B; 1735849; 1743543; 1746940; 1740815; 
1746995; 1738794; 1746488; 1732283; 1749060; 1747817: 1740740; 1745770.) 

All these recommendations are disapproved, with the few relatively unim¬ 
portant exceptions hereinafter noted. Almost all of them show, on the part of 
those making them, a deplorable ignorance of or indifference to the require¬ 
ments of law with regard to the rendition of these returns and rolls and the 
purposes for which they are rendered. Such ill-considered and impracticable 
recommendations afford convincing proof of the futility of calling upon officers 
of the Army generally for an expression of their views with regard to the 
paper work that they are required to perform. The files of this office are 
full of similar responses to similar calls previously made, and it is safe to 
say that very few of those responses were ever of any value to the Department 
in its repeated investigations of the perennially recurring question of paper 
work in the Army. 

The return in its various forms is one of the most ancient as well as most 
important of all military papers. The rendition of most of these forms is re¬ 
quired by law, the seventh article of war. and all of them are simply indis¬ 
pensable, because upon them alone the War Department and commanders of 
all grades from the highest to the lowest must rely for a readily accessible and 
concise showing of the composition, strength, and effectiveness of the commands 
rendering returns. In addition to this, the return is preeminently the historical 
record of the command to which it pertains, setting forth as it does in concise 
form and at short intervals all the principal changes that take place in that 
command from the beginning to the end of its existence. No other form of re¬ 
port ever has taken, or ever can take, the place of the return in this respect. 

The muster roll is primarily and chiefly the historical record of the individual 
soldier, giving once in two months a detailed account of the service of that 
soldier during the period covered by the roll. It is the chief source upon which 
the department must rely in order to meet the numberless demands that are 
made upon it for information as to the present status and past histories of in¬ 
dividual soldiers, including information to be used in the settlement of claims 
of the individuals themselves, or their widows and orphans, for pension, pay, 
and many other rights, benefits, and privileges, the allowance of which de¬ 
pends upon the record of military service. 

The pay roll is a financial and not a military record. Its form and substance 
are subject by law to determination by the Comptroller of the Treasury, and 
its destination is the office of the Auditor for the War Department, there 
to be filed as a voucher to a paymaster’s account. Pay rolls never reach The 
Adjutant General’s Office, and as compared with the muster rolls they are 


28 RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


relatively valueless as sources of information as to the military status and serv¬ 
ice of present or former soldiers. For these reasons, and especially because 
the form and substance of the pay roll are not subject to the control of the 
War Department, no further consideration need be given to that roll in 
connection with the subject of this memorandum. 

From the foregoing statements it will be seen that the purposes and uses of 
the return and the muster roll are widely different, it being the chief function 
of the return to show the status and history of a command, whereas it is the 
chief function of the muster roll to show the status and military histories of 
individual soldiers. These two reports differ as widely in form and sub¬ 
stance and as to the periods covered by them as they differ in functions and 
uses, so that there is no real relationship between them. While information of 
a somewhat similar nature is obtainable, to a limited extent, from each of these 
reports, the separate and distinct uses made of this information and of the 
reports containing it are so unrelated that it is beyond question that no avoid¬ 
able duplication of labor is involved in the preparation of the reports. To 
compile from the muster rolls information to take the place of some of that 
now shown in concise form by the returns is simply impossible, because, to say 
nothing of the long delay involved, the task of making such a compilation 
would be enormous and far beyond the capacity of the clerical force allowed 
by law to The Adjutant General’s Office. No argument is necessary to show 
the unwisdom of concentrating in the War Department a burden of labor that 
is borne lightly if distributed over the whole Army but that would be over¬ 
whelming if concentrated in the department. 

For the reasons hereinbefore stated, it is evident that no serious considera¬ 
tion should be given to the recommendations and suggestions that have been 
made with a view to abolishing, curtailing, or consolidating returns or muster 
rolls, in whole or in part. Aside from the injury that would result from any 
such action, because of the need for all the information now furnished by the 
various returns and rolls, and because of the widely different purposes for 
which the information now contained in separate reports is and must always 
be used, the consolidation of such unrelated matter, especially such as is borne 
by muster rolls and returns, would create a cumbersome and complicated re¬ 
port that must be rendered at more frequent intervals than the muster rolls 
are now rendered, that would lack the simplicity and succinctness of the 
former separate reports, that would delay and embarrass the work of the War 
Department and the Army, and that would undoubtedly increase that work 
instead of diminishing it. 

With regard to the frequency with which these reports shall be rendered, it 
is sufficient to say that long experience has demonstrated conclusively that, in 
order to serve even reasonably well the purposes for which they are intended, 
the returns must be rendered at periods of not more than a month and the rolls 
at periods of not more than two months. It goes without saying that those 
who must make use of the information that is furnished by them should have 
that information as of the latest practicable date. The present requirements 
as to the period for which returns and muster rolls shall be rendered are not un¬ 
duly burdensome upon those who have to render them, but even if they were 
they could not be relaxed in this respect without greatly impairing the value 
of the information furnished and causing serious embarrassment to those whose 
duty it is to make official use of that information. The injury that the public 
service would suffer through any additional delay in rendering these reports 
would in nowise be compensated for by the relatively trifling amount of labor 
that those who prepare and render the reports would escape. 

The size and form of the present returns are those whiffii long experience has 
shown to be best adapted, all interests considered, to the purposes for which 
they are intended, and no change in this respect should be made. With regard 
to the muster roll, experiments are now in progress with a view to determining 
as to the practicability of changing it into a form of standard size, SI by 3| 
inches. In addition to this as hereinafter stated, there are certain changes that 
can be made in the arrangement of the form and that will lessen the labor of 
preparing the reports thereon. These changes will be made before a new edition 
of the muster roll is printed, regardless of whether or not it is found practicable 
to reduce the size of the roll to that of the standard form. With these excep¬ 
tions no change should be made in the form or the requirements of the present 
muster roll. * * * 

F. C. Ainsworth, 

The Ad into nt General. 

March 25, 1911. 


RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 29 


As further evidence of “rudeness and ill-temper” on the part of 
Gen. Ainsworth, the Secretary of War quotes certain remarks made 
by Gen. Ainsworth on October 16, 1909, u in speaking of another gen¬ 
eral officer in the War Department, the head of one of its most im¬ 
portant bureaus.” But the Secretary of War, as appears from these 
papers, suppresses the following most important facts, and by so 
doing does gross injustice to Gen. Ainsworth; the facts suppressed 
are that these remarks were made by Gen. Ainsworth in reply to a 
most unprovoked attack which had been made upon him by the Chief 
of Engineers in an official communication addressed to the Secretary 
of War; that those remarks were contained in an indorsement ad¬ 
dressed to the Acting Secretary of War in compliance with a specific 
order ordering him to submit such “ report and comment ” as The 
Adjutant General might desire to submit with regard to the attack 
made upon him by the Chief of Engineers, and that the baselessness 
of this attack made by the Chief of Engineers was fully shoAvn by re¬ 
ports made by The Adjutant General, the Acting Chief of Staff, the 
Judge Advocate General, and the Assistant Secretary of War. Why 
this old story should have been revived at this time, your committee 
can not understand, unless it was for the purpose of discrediting Gen. 
Ainsworth. 

Following is a copy of all the correspondence of any importance, 
or which is pertinent to this discussion, that part of Gen. Ainsworth’s 
indorsement of October 16, 1909, which is printed in black-face type 
being the extract which is quoted by the Secretary of War in his 
letter of February 14, in support of his accusations: 

[Fifth indorsement.] 


War Department, 

The Adjutant General’s Office, 

Washington, September 21, 1909. 

Respectfully returned to the Chief of Engineers, with remark that the action of 
his office in authorizing Maj. Cavanaugh to assume the duties of Maj. Mclndoe 
without first submitting the matter to this office for the action of the Secretary 
of War, by whose order Maj. Mclndoe had been placed in charge of those duties, 
was wholly unnecessary and unwarranted. 

As Maj. Cavanaugh’s telegram was received by the office of the Chief of 
Engineers at 2.46 p. m., Friday, September 3. there was ample time for the 
Acting Chief of Engineers to ask for, in the usual manner, and to obtain the 
issuance by competent authority of the necessary telegraphic orders on that day. 

By order of the Secretary of War: 

Benj. x\lvord, Adjutant General. 

[Sixth indorsement.] 


War Department, 

Office of the Chief of Engineers, 

Washington, October If, 1909. 

1. Respectfully submitted, by his permission, to the Secretary of War. 

2. The indorsement of September 21, 1909, on these papers constitutes a repri¬ 
mand administered to the chief of a bureau of the War Department by The 
Adjutant General in the name of the Secretary of War. 

3. It is believed by the Chief of Engineers that the powers and duties of The 
Adjutant General in regard to the transaction of routine business in the name 
of the Secretary of War do not authorize The Adjutant General to administer 
such a reprimand without in fact submitting the papers in the case to the Sec¬ 
retary of War and obtaining his express sanction of the contemplated action. 
The Chief of Engineers is informed that this course was not followed in the 
present case, and that the Secretary of War had not seen the papers in this case 


30 RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


and had not sanctioned the reprimand administered by The Adjutant General 
when the indorsement of September 21 ivas written. The Chief of Engineers, 
therefore, takes exception to this action of The Adjutant General, which is 
regarded as beyond his authority and power and subversive of discipline, even 
if the rebuke or reprimand administered were warranted by the facts. A o 
officer should be subject to reprimand by another officer not his commander and 
without the knowledge of any authority competent to administer a reprimand 
to an officer of the Army. (Pars. 2 and 3, Army Regulations, Articles of 
War 25.) 

4. The rebuke administered to the Chief of Engineers by The Adjutant 
General in tlie indorsement of September 21 is based upon the action of the 
Acting Chief of Engineers in directing Maj. Cavanaugh, on September 3, to 
temporarily assume charge of the river and harbor and fortification duties 
in charge of Maj. .T. F. Mclndoe, Corps of Engineers, and the funds pertain¬ 
ing thereto. On the date mentioned a telegram was received at the office of 
the Chief of Engineers from Maj. Cavanaugh, then at Portland, Oreg., on 
leave of absence granted by the Chief of Engineers, stating that Maj. Mclndoe, 
in charge of the river and harbor and fortification works of the Portland 
engineering district, had been taken ill with typhoid fever and that his imme¬ 
diate relief was imperative. Acting under the general powers granted to 
the Chief of Engineers by law and regulations, the acting chief at once directed 
Maj. Cavanaugh by telegraph to temporarily assume charge of Maj. Mclndoe's 
engineer-department duties and funds. In the opinion of the Acting Chief 
of Engineers a grave emergency was presented. Maj. Mclndoe’s disburse¬ 
ments average over $150,000 per month, and in order to avoid delay and con¬ 
fusion it was important that the transfer should be made while Maj. Mclndoe’s 
physical condition was such as to enable him to sign the necessary transfer 
papers. No change of station was involved in the transaction and no expense 
was incurred. 

5. While the above action of the Acting Chief of Engineers was entirely 
within the limits of the powers, duties, and discretion of the Chief of Engi¬ 
neers, it was nevertheless reported at once by Col. Abbot, the Acting Chief 
of Engineers, to The Adjutant General, both by telephone and by letter, and 
request was made for confirmation of the action by the Secretary of War. 
According to Col. Abbot’s recollection the matter was reported by telephone 
before his telegram was sent directing Maj. Cavanaugh to assume charge of 
Maj. Mclndoe’s duties, so that if The Adjutant General had jurisdiction in 
the case, and so desired, he could then and there and at once have annulled, 
the action of the Acting Chief of Engineers, and could have taken such meas¬ 
ures as he deemed proper in the case. This, however, he did not do. Four 
days later, under date of September 7, The Adjutant General notified this 
office that the Secretary of War had confirmed the action of the Acting Chief 
of Engineers in directing Maj. Cavanaugh to temporarily relieve Maj. Mc¬ 
lndoe of the duties in his charge (letter herewith). Notwithstanding this 
official confirmation, the indorsement of September 21 was written 14 days 
later, characterizing the action of the office of the Chief of Engineers in the 
matter as unwarranted and unnecessary. 

6. The statement in the indorsement of September 21—that as Maj. Mclndoe 

had been placed in charge of his duties by the order of the Secretary of War, the 
Chief of Engineers has no power to temporarily relieve him of them—is not in 
conformity with practice and precedent. It is true that Maj. Mclndoe was directed 
to take station in Portland. Oreg.. by War Department order (S. O. 119, W. I)., 
190S), and was directed by that order to relieve Lieut. Col. S. W. Roessler. 
Corps of Engineers, of the fortification and river and harbor works in his 
charge; but this latter direction does not curtail the power of the Chief of En¬ 
gineers to increase or to diminish those duties or to assign any or all of them, 
for good and sufficient reasons, to other officers of his corps, so long as no per¬ 
manent change of station is involved. By paragraph 1511, Army Regulations, 
the Chief of Engineers is charged “ with the command of the Corps of En¬ 
gineers, * * * and with the management of the engineer department, in¬ 

cluding the regulation of the duties of all officers, agents, and others who may 
be employed under his direction.” By paragraph 745, Army Regulations, the 
Chief of Engineers is authorized to issue travel orders for necessary journeys 
on river and harbor and fortification duty, and the laws, regulations, and prece¬ 
dents of nearly 100 years uniformly recognize or specifically express the right 
and power of the Chief of Engineers to thus regulate the duties of the officers 
of his corps. 


BELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 31 


7. The supervision and execution of works of river and harbor improvement 
and of fortification construction are placed by law under the Engineer Depart¬ 
ment, and the Chief of Engineers is specifically charged with the administration 
of these works, under the direction of the Secretary of War. Works of this 
character are committed by the Secretary of War to the Chief of Engineers and 
not to individual officers of the corps. The assignment of such works to indi¬ 
vidual constructing officers is made by the Chief of Engineers. With every 
ri\or and harbor bill and every fortification bill additional works are intrusted 
to the Chief of Engineers, and are by him assigned to such officers as he selects, 
and his right to thus assign these works has never been questioned. Every new 
project of river and harbor improvement, every preliminary examination and 
survey, every new item of construction or repair of fortifications or accessories, 
provided for in the successive appropriation acts is thus assigned to the indi¬ 
vidual constructing officers by the Chief of Engineers, and the fact of such as¬ 
signment is not reported to The Adjutant General or to the Secretary of War. 
The Secretary of War holds the Chief of Engineers responsible for tiie works: 
it is the right and duty of the Chief of Engineers to direct his subordinate in 
its immediate execution. 

8. A long line of precedents can be cited in support of the action of the Acting 
Chief of Engineers in this case, showing similar action without the intervention 
of The Adjutant General. Among recent cases of an exactly similar nature are 
the following: 

In June, 1009, Capt. E. M. Adams, Corps of Engineers, stationed at Charles¬ 
ton, S. C., was taken ill with typhoid fever. The facts were reported to the 
Chief of Engineers, who at once directed Capt. E. I. Brown. Corps of Engineers,, 
stationed at Wilmington, N. C., to assume temporary charge of Capt. Adams’s 
duties and funds. This temporary transfer was reported to the Secretary of 
War direct, in connection with a request for the withdrawal of the funds to 
Capt. Adams’s credit on the books of the Treasury and their reallotment to 
Capt. Brown, Capt. Adams being too ill to sign the transfer papers. Upon 
Capt. Adams’s return to duty, at the end of July, Capt. Brown was directed by 
the Chief of Engineers to retransfer the works and funds to Capt. Adams, 
which was done. 

In January, 1907, Lieut. Col. Edward Burr, Corps of Engineers, then sta¬ 
tioned at Boston, Mass., was directed by the Chief of Engineers to temporarily 
relieve First Lieut. H. C. Jewett, Corps of Engineers, of the fortification and 
river and harbor works in the Portland (Me.) district, Lieut. Jewett being 
incapacitated by an attack of typhoid fever. Steps were taken to withdraw 
all funds standing to Lieut. Jewett’s credit on the books of the Treasury, and 
requisition for funds to be placed to the credit of Lieut. Col. Burr was made. 
Lieut. Col. Burr remained in temporary charge of the Portland district until 
relieved by Lieut. Col. G. A. Zinn, Corps of Engineers, under the provisions of 
Special Orders 101, War Department, 1907, in May of that year. 

In October, 1903, Col. G. J. Lydecker, Corps of Engineers, then stationed at 
Cincinnati, Ohio, was.directed by the Chief of Engineers to assume temporary 
charge of the works in the Pittsburgh district during the illness of Capt. W. L. 
Sibert, Corps of Engineers, the officer in permanent charge, and he was simi¬ 
larly ordered by the Chief of Engineers to retransfer the works to Capt. Sibert 
when the latter returned to duty in November. 

In February, 1900, Lieut. Col. W. II. H. Benyaurd, Corps of Engineers, sta¬ 
tioned in New York, died suddenly in that city. Maj. W. L. Marshall. Corps 
of Engineers, also stationed in that city, was directed by the Chief of Engineers, 
by wire, to assume temporary charge of all duties, money, and property that 
had been in charge of Lieut. Col. Benyaurd. Maj. Marshall duly assumed 
charge of these duties, and remained in temporary charge until relieved by 
Maj. E. H. Ruffner, Corps of Engineers, under the provisions of Special Orders 
94, War Department, April 21, 1900. 

Precisely similar action was taken on the sudden death of Maj. J. F. Gregory. 
Corps of Engineers, in Cincinnati, Ohio, in July, 1897, and in the case of the 
sudden death of Col. O. M. Poe, Corps of Engineers, in Detroit, Mich., in Octo¬ 
ber. 1895. 

8. In the cases cited above an emergency existed of a similar character to 
that which was presented in the present case, but similar action has been taken 
by the Chief of Engineers even when no such emergency existed, as shown by 
the cases cited below. 

In March, 1909, Capt. Lytle Brown, Corps of Engineers, stationed at Louis¬ 
ville, Ivy., was assigned by the Chief of Engineers certain duties connected 


32 


BELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


with the survey of the Ohio River, and, in order that lie might perform these 
duties without detriment to the other works in his charge, Lieut. Col. J. G. 
Warren, Corps of Engineers, stationed at Cincinnati, Ohio, was directed by 
the Chief of Engineers on April 13, 1909, to temporarily relieve Capt. Brown 
of his other duties. These duties are to be retransferred to Capt. Brown upon 
completion of the field season of the Ohio River survey. 

In November, 1907. Col. Milton B. Adams, Corps of Engineers, stationed at 
Grand Rapids, Mich., was granted a leave of absence for 2 months and 12 days, 
and in order to provide for the conduct of the works in his charge during his 
absence, he was directed by the Chief of Engineers to temporarily transfer the 
duties and funds in his charge to Maj. Charles Keller, Corps of Engineers, 
stationed at Detroit, Mich., and to resume charge upon his return from leave. 

9. Similar citations could be multiplied indefinitely were it considered neces¬ 
sary. In all these cases travel orders for such journeys as were necessary to 
carry out the instructions of the Chief of Engineers were issued by the Chief 
of Engineers, and in none of them was The Adjutant General or the Secretary 
of War consulted, except incidentally when the transfer of funds by the 
method of the Treasury withdrawal and reallotment was necessary, on account 
of the inability of the officer in permanent charge of the work to sign the 
transfer papers. These cases are not evidences of a persistent violation of the 
rules of proper procedure but are examples of the necessary exercise of powers 
inherent in the principle of executive control by a responsible head. 

10. The action of the Acting Chief of Engineers in directing Maj. Cavanaugh 
to temporarily assume charge of Maj. Mclndoe’s works under the Engineer 
Department was strictly correct and in accordance with precedent. His only 
error was in reporting his action to The Adjutant General and in asking a con¬ 
firmation, which was totally unnecessary. If the Chief of Engineers had been 
present this error would not have been made. The duties which Maj. Cava¬ 
naugh was directed by this office to assume were only those pertaining to 
river and harbor improvement and to fortification construction. The light¬ 
house duties and funds were transferred, by order of the Secretary of War, 
after consultation with the Secretary of the Department of Commerce and 
Labor. There was no emergency in the Lighthouse Service, inasmuch as the 
naval inspector was on hand and could temporarily act. The action of the 
Acting Chief of Engineers, being within the discretion vested in the Chief of 
Engineers, is not reviewable by The Adjutant General; and even if it were 
so reviewable, the formal confirmation of that action by the Secretary of War, 
as expressed in the letter from The Adjutant General, dated September 7, 1909. 
herewith, is an absolute bar to further review or animadversion on the part of 
The Adjutant General. The Chief of Engineers is charged with the execution 
of many varied and important ivories, involving the employment of multitudes 
of men and the expenditure of vast sums of public funds. If his executive 
acts within the legal sphere of his activities are to he reviewed by The Adju¬ 
tant General and his discretion in the conduct of the works committed to him 
is to be questioned by The Adjutant General, the entire principle of executive 
administration and responsibility in the Engineer Department is or may be 
paralyzed. The Chief of Engineers can not recognize the right of The Adjutant 
General to so review his acts, nor can he submit to criticism or reprimand by 
The Adjutant General based upon the exercise of his discretion in matters 
which are by law committed to his charge. 

11. The Chief of Engineers feels this matter very keenly. He feels that 
The Adjutant General has used the name of the Secretary of War to obtain from 
the files of this office official papers pertaining solely to the business of this 
office, and that he has used these papers as the basis of a reprimand to the Chief 
of Engineers, administered m the name of the Secretary of War. Such a 
reprimand, if indeed administered by the Secretary of War, is a punishment 
which must be keenly felt by any conscientious and high-spirited officer , and 
which must follow him to the end of his career, if, in accordance with exist¬ 
ing regulations relative to all expressions of censure from superiors, it is filed 
with his record in the War Department. But when such action is taken by 
The Adjutant General, in the name of the Secretary of War, but without his 
express sanction, it becomes a wrong and an injustice, which same method 
may be used to destroy each and every officer's usefulness in the Army. 

12. For the various reasons above set forth, the Chief of Engineers requests 
that the reflections upon the conduct of the Office of the Chief of Engineers in 


RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 33 


this case contained in the indorsement of September 21, 1909, be expunged from 
the records of the War Department. 

W. L. Marshall, 

Chief of Engineers , United States Army. 

[Seventh indorsement.] 

War Department, October 18, 1909. 

Respectfully returned to The Adjutant General, inviting attention to preced¬ 
ing indorsement, with direction to submit such report and comment as he may 
desire to present thereon. 

Robert Shaw Oliver, 

Acting Secretary of War. 


[Eighth indorsement.] 


To Col. Alvord, for remark. 

A. G. O. 

Oct. 14, 1909. 

| Ninth indorsement | 


The Adjutant General’s Office, 

October 16, 1909. 

Resi>ectfully returned to The Adjutant General of the Army. 

In the afternoon of September 3 last, at least an hour before the close of 
office hours, Col. F. V. Abbot, Corps of Engineers, Acting Chief of Engineers, 
called me by telephone and stated that he had received telegraphic notice that 
Maj. Mclndoe, in charge of the Portland (Oreg.) engineering district, was ill 
with typhoid fever, and that he, Col. Abbot, had telegraphed Maj. Cavanaugh, 
then on leave of absence in Portland, directing him to relieve Maj. Mclndoe 
temporarily of his duties and to take over his funds. I asked Col. Abbot if 
he had already telegraphed such an order, and he distinctly answered that 
he had, and asked me what he should do next. Thereupon I told him that 
there was nothing for him to do but to make a written report of the matter to 
The Adjutant General of the Army and ask for confirmation of the action 
taken. 


on the two following 
I at once submitted it 
the action taken and 


Under date of September 3, the Acting Chief of Engineers addressed to The 
Adjutant General the letter hereby returned. In that letter he reported the 
action taken by him with regard to Majs. Mclndoe and Cavanaugh, asked that 
the instructions given by him to those officers be confirmed, and recommended 
that inquiry be made of the Department of Commerce and Labor as to whether 
there was objection to the temporary transfer of Maj. Mclndoe’s duties as 
lighthouse inspector to Maj. Cavanaugh. This letter was not received in the 
mail room of The Adjutant General’s Office until just at the close of office 
hours on September 4, and the department was closed 
days; but on September 7 the letter reached my desk and 
to \lie Acting Chief of Staff, who directed approval of 
that the necessary letter be written to the Department of Commerce and Labor. 
I caused such a "letter to be prepared and took it to the Acting Secretary of 
War, who, after hearing a statement of the case from me, signed the letter. 
I also addressed a letter to the Chief of Engineers, informing him that the 
Secretary of War had confirmed the action taken in directing the temporary 
relief of" Maj. Mclndoe by Maj. Cavanaugh. 

In this connection it is proper to remark that since June 25, 1908, pursuant 
to instructions received from the Assistant Secretary of War on that date, 
unless otherwise specifically directed, all orders depending upon the authority 
of the Secretary of War for their validity have been given in his name, whether 
he be present or not, the use of the words “Acting Secretary of War” having 

On September 8 I submitted to the Acting Chief of Staff a lettei fiom the 
Acting Secretary of Commerce and Labor requesting the temporary assign¬ 
ment of Maj Cavanaugh as engineer of the thirteenth lighthouse district, and 
bv direction of the Acting Chief of Staff an order making the assignment was 
prepared. On the same day I stated the case to the Acting Secretary of War 
and submitted to him a telegram, which he signed, informing the Secretary of 
Commerce and Labor that an order detailing Maj. Cavanaugh temporarily as 


H. Rept. 508, 02-2- 


34 RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


engineer of the thirteenth lighthouse district and directing him to report by 
telegraph to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor had been made. On the 
same day I also telegraphed Maj. Cavanaugh that this order had been made. 

There being no record in this office of the telegraphic correspondence between 
the Acting Chief of Engineers and Maj. Cavanaugh on which confirmation of 
the action taken in the case by the Acting Chief of Engineers was asked and 
given in the name of the Secretary of War, as hereinbefore stated, I called 
upon the Chief of Engineers, in the name of the Secretary of War, on September 
8 for copies of that correspondence. This call was made after submission of 
the matter to the Acting Chief of Staff and by his direction (first indorsement 
hereon). The copies thus called for having been received it was found that a 
copy of the telegram from Maj. Cavanaugh to the Chief of Engineers, informing 
him of the illness of Maj. Mclndoe, was deficient in the important particular 
that it did not show the time of its receipt. It was also found, from a copy of 
the telegram of the Acting Chief of Engineers to Maj. Cavanaugh, tha the Act¬ 
ing Chief of Engineers had been in communication with the Lighthouse Board 
with regard to the matter. Therefore, I submitted all the papers in the case 
to the Acting Chief of Staff, and by his direction I called upon the Chief of 
Engineers, in the name of the Secretary of War, on September 14 (third in¬ 
dorsement hereon) for the original telegram from Maj. Cavanaugh to the Chief 
of Engineers, also for copies or a statement showing what passed between the 
Lighthouse Board and the office of the Chief of Engineers with regard to the 
matter in question. 

In connection with these calls upon the Chief of Engineers for information 
with regard to this case it is proper to remark that both of the calls we're 
made “ By order of the Secretary of War ” after submission of the matter to 
the Acting Chief of Staff and by virtue of the authority vested in the Chief of 
Staff by paragraph 3 of a published order (E) of the Secretary of War of 
April 14, 1906. That paragraph is as follows: 

“The submission of matters to the Secretary by the Chief of Staff will be 
in person. Before presentation to either the Secretary or the Assistant Secre¬ 
tary the cases should be completed by obtaining the necessary recommendation, 
reports, or information from the bureaus of the department, or the military 
authorities outside of the department, and to this end the Chief of Staff is 
authorized to call therefor. 

“ By order of the Secretary of War.” 

After having been fully advised as to all the facts in the case the Acting 
Chief of Staff decided that the papers should be returned to the Chief of 
Engineers, whose attention should be called to the improper action of his office 
with regard to the case and especially to the fact that there was ample time 
to make request for proper action in the usual way. Thereupon, I caused the 
draft of an indorsement conveying that decision (fifth indorsement hereon) 
to be prepared. On September 21 I submitted that draft to the Acting Chief 
of Staff, who read it and approved it. I then took it to the Acting Secretary 
of War, who read it and approved it after I had advised him fully with regard 
to the case and the action that had been taken by the Acting Chief of Staff 
with regard to it. 

Following is a copy of the record made by me immediately after the submis¬ 
sion of this draft and before the fair copy was written: 

“ Foregoing draft submitted to the Actg. Chief of Staff and the Acting Secre¬ 
tary of War this date, and approved by them. B. A. (B. Alvord), A. G. Sept. 
21, ’09.” 

Not a single step has been taken by The Adjutant General’s Office in this 
case, from the beginning up to the present time, without the full knowledge 
and approval of either the Acting Secretary of War, the Acting Chief of Staff, 
or both combined. The assertion of the Chief of Engineers that the third 
indorsement hereon conveys a reprimand to him is without foundation. That 
indorsement advises him in a very mild way to the effect that the action of 
his office in directing Maj. Cavanaugh to assume the duties of Maj. Mclndoe 
without first submitting the matter for the action of the Secretary of War, by 
whom Maj. Mclndoe had been placed in charge of those duties" was wholly 
unnecessary and unwarranted. 

The facts in this case are very simple. Maj. Mclndoe was placed in charge 
of certain duties by the express order of the Secretary of War. It required an 
order of the Secretary of War or the President to relieve him from those duties. 
The Acting Chief of Engineers undertook to relieve him without invoking the 
authority or consent of any superior. There was not the slightest necessity 


RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 35 


tor Ins doing this. He received telegraphic notice of Maj. Mclndoe’s illness 
at 2.40 p. m., when both the Acting Chief of Staff and the Acting Secretary of 
War were in their offices and would remain there for at least an hour and a 
half. If he had brought or sent his telegraphic notice to The Adjutant Gen- 
eial s Office, as lie should have done, the notice would have been acted on by 
the Acting Chief of Staff and the Acting Secretary of War, and the necessary 
telegraphic order would have been sent to Maj. Cavanaugh all within 20 
minutes at the most and probably within 10 minutes. 

That a subordinate may change, even temporarily, the operation of a specific 
order of a superior wheu that superior is readily accessible and is in position 
to act in the matter virtually as quickly and as understanding^ as the subordi¬ 
nate could is a proposition that in military affairs is novel, to say the least 

Benj. Alvord, Adjutant General. 

[Tenth indorsement.] 

War Department, 

The Adjutant General’s Office, 

Washington, October 16, 1909. 

Respectfully returned to the Acting Secretary of War. 

The burden of the complaints embodied by the Chief of Engineers in his 
somewhat emotional indorsement (sixth) hereon is that he has been repri¬ 
manded and that The Adjutant General did it improperly, on his own respon¬ 
sibility, and by making unauthorized use of the name of the Secretary of War. 
Neither of these complaints has any foundation other than in the heated imagi¬ 
nation of the officer who made them. 

To say that informing the Chief of Engineers that certain action taken by 
his office was wholly unnecessary and unwarranted constitutes a reprimand 
is equivalent to saying that a reprimand to an officer is involved whenever in 
the course of official correspondence attention of that officer is directed, no 
matter how mildly, to any error of procedure on his part or on the part of any 
of his subordinates. The mere statement of such a contention is sufficient to 
show its fallacy. 

The baselessness of the Chief of Engineer’s confident assertion to the effect 
that The Adjutant General acted in this case on his own responsibility and 
improperly used the name of the Secretary of War in doing so is conclusively 
shown by the seventh indorsement hereon, in which it is made clear that every 
step that was taken in the case was taken with the full knowledge and approval 
of the Acting Chief of Staff, the Acting Secretary of War, or of both of them 
together, and that in every instance the Secretary of War was properly cited 
as the source of authority for the action taken. The Adjutant General accepts 
the entire responsibility for everything that was done in or by his office in this 
case. He would accept that responsibility without question even if his office 
had erred in the matter, but he knows that it did not err. He watched the case 
closely from the beginning, and took care that no step should be taken in it by 
his office without the full knowledge and assent of competent authority. 

It does not seem incumbent upon The Adjutant General to enter into an 
elaborate defense of the decision, made by authority superior to him in this 
case, to the effect that, there being ample time to secure the action of such 
authority, the action of the office of the Chief of Engineers in relieving Maj. 
Mclndoe of duties assigned to him by the Secretary of War was wholly 
unnecessary and unwarranted. It seems sufficient to say that if the Chief of 
Engineers can, as he contends, relieve such officers of duties so assigned to them 
whenever he sees fit to do so, and without the assent of the Secretary of War, 
he can at will completely nullify any such assignment orders of the Secretary of 
War, and the issuance of such orders by the Secretary is a useless and empty 
formality. Life is too short to permit of wasting any portion of it in discussion 
with, or for the benefit of, anyone whose conception of the underlying principles 
of military administration is so hazy that he can advocate such a proposition 
seriously. A proposition of this kind would be regarded as remarkable if 
advanced by a State militiaman, and it is simply amazing when put forward by 
an officer of the Regular Army, even though his connection with the military 
side of that establishment be so remote as to be merely nominal. 

Touching the precedents cited by the Chief of Engineers in support of the 
action of his office in the case in question, it is to be observed that they all 
appear to have been created in his own office, and to be merely cumulative 
evidence of the entertainment by that office of erroneous views as to the powers 
of the Chief of Engineers. It is not doubted that the Chief of Engineers can 
find in the records of action taken by his office precedents for many irregular 


36 RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


and unmilitary procedures, but it does not follow that those 
or are right, or that they would have been tolerated in the 
been brought to the attention of the proper authority, as was 


procedures were 
last if they had 
the procedure 


that led to this correspondence. . 

When the Chief of Engineers learns that the principal allegations made by 
him in the sixth indorsement hereon are without foundation in fact, he must be 
deeply chagrined over the deplorable recklessness of statement that he dis¬ 
played in that indorsement. But the predicament that he has placed himself 
in is one that usually awaits those who hasten to attack others without first 
making sure that their own weapons are reliable. Perhaps the Chief of En¬ 
gineers may be brought to realize, too, that to protest with much vehemence 
that one has been unjustly reprimanded or otherwise outraged by having his 
attention called officially to an error on his part is an artifice that does not 
obscure the error, however much it may relieve the chagrin that is naturally 
due to the discovery of the error and to the notice taken of it. 

This incident will not have been entirely devoid of value, to the Chief of 
Engineers at least, if that officer shall learn from it that he can best protect 
the interests of his department by taking care that he and it shall be right in 
their procedure, and that it is never wise and is seldom safe to attack others 
without first making sure that the attack is justifiable and that the weapons 
of the attacking party can be depended upon. 

F. C. Atnsnvorth, 

The Adjutant General. 


| Eleventh indorsement.] 


War Department, October 16, 1900. 

Respectfully referred to Brig. Gen. W. W. Wotherspoon, Assistant Chief of 
Staff, for such comment hereon as he may desire to submit. 

Robert Stiaw Oliver, 

Acting Secretarii of War. 

[Twelfth indorsement.] 

War Department, 

Office of the Chief of Staif, 

Washington, October 19, 1909. 

Respectfully returned to the Acting Secretary of War. 

The facts in this case are fully and accurately set forth in the eighth (ninth) 
indorsement hereon. When my attention as Acting Chief of Staff was called 
to the fact that an order had been issued by the Acting Chief of Engineers, 
without consultation with or the consent of the Acting Secretary of War, 
assigning an officer of his corps to duty which would keep him away from his 
regular station for an indefinite time, the question naturally arose, did such 
an emergency exist or was the necessity so great as to warrant what appeared 
to be an unusual act? In determining what emergency or urgent necessity 
existed for this action it was necessary to ascertain whether the date or hour 
of the receipt of information on which the action was taken was such as to 
preclude the use of the ordinary methods pursued in the assignment of officers 
to duty of any kind. When it developed that this information was received 
at least an hour and a half prior to the time the Acting Secretai*y of War 
left his office on the date in question, and that the urgency of the case was not 
such as to preclude the slight delay of from 5 to 10 minutes which wrnuld have 
resulted had the Acting Chief of Engineers pursued the normal and regular 
course in bringing the matter to the attention of the Acting Secretary of War 
before issuing the order, I deemed the occasion a proper one to invite the 
attention of the Acting Secretary of War and the Acting Chief of Engineers to 
w r kat appeared to be the lack of necessity and warrant for such precipitate and 
unusual action. I therefore approved the draft of the indorsement referred 
to by the Chief of Engineers and directed that it be submitted to the Acting 
Secretary of War to see if it met with his approbation. The indorsement w r as 
so submitted and approved by him. 

In inviting the attention of the Acting Chief of Engineers to the manifest lack 
of such urgency or necessity in this case as to warrant such a departure from 
the ordinary and normal way of transacting business connected with the detail 
of officers for duty there w r as no intention of conveying a reprimand to that 
officer, and it appears to me that it requires a somew r hat strained interpretation 
o attribute such a meaning to the indorseiment complained of. 

W. W. Wotherspoon, 

Brigadier General, General Staff, Assistant to the Chief of Staff. 


RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 37 


[Inclosure to the twelfth indorsement.] 
[Memorandum for the Acting Secretary of War.] 


War Department, 

Office of the Chief of Staff, 

Washington, October 20, 1900 

Tlie following, whilst having no place in my indorsement on the papers con¬ 
nected with the complaint of the Chief of Engineers that he construed a certain 
indorsement of The Adjutant General of the Army as an unauthorized repri¬ 
mand, seems to he pertinent to the subject under discussion, for it would appear 
that the real subject at issue is, Can the Chief of Engineers order officers of his 
corps on duty without consultation with the Secretary of War, or, at least, with¬ 
out pursuing the same course as is followed by other corps and departments of 
the Army? 

The Chief of Engineers, in the opening sentences of paragraph 10 of his 
indorsement, says: 

“ The action of the Acting Chief of Engineers in directing Maj. Cavanaugh to 
temporarily assume charge of Maj. Mclndoe’s works under the Engineer De¬ 
partment was strictly correct and in accordance with precedent. His only 
error was in reporting his action to The Adjutant General and in asking a con¬ 
firmation, which was totally unnecessary.” 

Maj. Cavanaugh was assigned to duty in the Office of the Chief of Engineers, 
with station in this city, by paragraph 22, Special Orders No. 215, War Depart¬ 
ment, 1907. Paragraph 5. Special Orders No. 175, War Department. 1908, de¬ 
tailed him as a member of the Lighthouse Board. Maj. Mclndoe was assigned 
to duty at Portland, Oreg., in charge of fortification and river and harbor works 
and as chief engineer of the Department of the Columbia by paragraph 6, Special 
Orders No. 119. War Department, 190S. He was assigned to lighthouse duty by 
paragraph 2, Special Orders No. 127, War Department, 1908. Paragraph 16. 
Special Orders, No. 144. War Department, 1908, revoked so much of the first 
order as related to duty as chief engineer, Department of the Columbia. 

All of the above orders were issued either 

“By order of the Acting Secretary of War: 

“J. Franklin Bell, 

“ Major General, Chief of Staff. 

“ Official: 

“Henry P. McCain, Adjutant General .” 


or 

“ By order of the Acting Secretary of War: 

“ William P. Duvall, 

“ Major General , Acting Chief of Staff. 

“ Official: 

“ Henry P. McCain, Adjutant General .” 

From this it will be seen that both of these officers were assigned to duty 
in the regular and normal way by orders issued from The Adjutant General's 
Office, pursuant to instructions from the Secretary of War’s office, and that 
those orders involved duty in connection with fortification works in addition 
to work connected with river and harbor work and lighthouse duty. To claim 
that the change of status of these officers can be made without instructions 
received through the same channels as those used in the above-cited orders 
would appear to raise the question whether officers of the Engineer Corps con¬ 
stitute a body in the Army exempt, so far at least as their assignment to 
river and harbor and fortification work is concerned, from that supervision and 
direction which the Secretary of War holds and exercises through The Ad¬ 
jutant General’s Office over all other officers of the Army. There is no ques¬ 
tion but that the Secretary of War can issue such orders or instructions as he 
deems proper, and may issue them in such manner as seems to him proper. 
At the same time there seems to be equally no question but that all officers of 
the Army must comply, unless specially directed otherwise, with such regula¬ 
tions and orders as have been promulgated by the Secretary of War governing 
methods of procedure in bringing matters which require his official sanction 
to the Secretary of War’s attention. In my opinion the procedure suggested 


38 RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


by the Chief of Engineers, in that part of his indorsement above quoted, would 
not be consistent with regulations and orders now existing. 

Very respectfully, 


W. W. WOTHERSPOON, 
Brigadier General, General Staff, 

Assistant to the Chief of Staff. 


[Thirteenth indorsement.] 

War Department, October 20, 1909. 

Respectfully referred to the Judge Advocate General, inviting particular 
attention to the twelfth indorsement hereon and to the accompanying memo¬ 
randum of the Assistant to the Chief of Staff, dated October 20, 1909. 

By the personal direction of the Secretary of War, the Judge Advocate Gen¬ 
eral will render full report upon the following questions, viz : 

1. Did the Acting Chief of Enginers act within his rights when directing 
Maj. Cavanaugh to temporarily relieve Maj. Mclndoe? 

2. Has the Chief of Engineers authority, without orders from the Secre¬ 
tary of War, to assign to or relieve from duty or order from point to point 
such officers of his corps as are engaged (a) in river and harbor work; (b) 
upon fortification work? 

Robert Shaw Oliver, 

Acting Secretary of War. 


At Belle Meade, 
Nashville, Tenn., October 9, 1909. 

Dear Sir: I inclose herewith the papers in regard to the reprimand of the 
Chief of Engineers by The Adjutant General. 

The issue made by them must be determined. I have had no question of this 
sort presented to me, and do not know what precedents there are. Without any 
knowledge on the subject, it seems that it would be proper to refer the matter 
to the Judge Advocate General, to report upon the following propositions: 

(1) Did the Acting Chief of Engineers act within his rights in directing Maj. 
Cavanaugh to temporarily relieve Maj. Mclndoe? 

(2) Was it a matter over which The Adjutant General had any jurisdiction? 

If any other points occur to you, please submit them also. 

I would like to have a report made by you in this matter, either in the way I 
suggest or in some other way. if this is not in accordance with precedent, so that 
I may dispose of it on my return to Washington. 

Yours, respectfully, J. M. Dickinson. 

Hon. Robert Shaw Oliver, 

Assistant Secretary of War. Washington, D. C. 

Memoranda Relating to the Extent of the Authority of the Chief of 
Engineers over the Works in his Charge. 

Extracts from river and harbor appropriation acts. 

[Act of Mar. 3, 1909.] 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That for the preservation and main¬ 
tenance of existing river and harbor works heretofore appropriated for by 
Congress and for continuing in operation such dredging and other plants or 
equipment of any kind owned by the United States Government and constructed 
or acquired for use on river and harbor improvements there be, and is hereby, 
appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to 
be immediately available and to be expended under the direction of the Secre¬ 
tary of War and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers, the sum of eight 
million one hundred and eighty-five thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars: 
Provided, That allotments from the amount herein named shall be made by the 
Secretary of War. and the same shall be recommended by the local engineer 
having such channel improvement or other public work in charge and the 
Chief of Engineers, respectively: 



RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 39 


[Act of Mar. 2, 1907.] 

Be it enacted by the Senate arid House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums of money 
be, and are hereby, appropriated, to be paid out of any money in the Treasury 
not otherwise appropriated, to be immediately available and to be expended 
under the direction of the Secretary of War and the supervision of the Chief 
of Engineers, for the construction, completion, repair, and preservation of the 
public works hereinafter named: 

******* 
Extract from sundry civil act approved March //, 1909. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums be. and the 
same are hereiy, appropriated for the objects hereinafter expressed for the 
fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and ten, namely: 

******* 

ENGINEER DEPARTMENT. 

Toward the construction of works on harbors and rivers, under contract 
and otherwise, and within the limits authorized by law, namely: 

******* 

Extract from ] the fortification appropriation act approved March 3, 1909. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the sums of money herein pro¬ 
vided for be. and the same are hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be available until expended, namely: 

FORTIFICATIONS AND OTHER WORKS OF DEFENSE. 

UNDER THE ENGINEER DEPARTMENT. 

* _ * * * * * * 

FORTIFICATIONS IN INSULAR POSSESSIONS. 

ENGINEER DEPARTMENT. 

******* 
Extracts from Army Regulations, 1908. 

745. When a chief of bureau of the War Department desires to change the 
station of an officer or enlisted man of his department, or to send him on duty 
peculiar thereto (except in cases of officers employed under the appropriations 
for the improvement of rivers and harbors and for construction of fortifica¬ 
tions), he will apply to The Adjutant General of the Army for the necessary 
orders, setting forth the reasons for the change or the purpose of the journeys. 

[Exception.] 

* 

747. When business upon which a board of officers is to be assembled is solely 
within the sphere of duty of a particular staff department, and the members 
thereof are to be selected from the same, the chief of such department will call 
the board if it is to meet at a post or station under his immediate control and 
is to be composed only of officers serving thereat; otherwise the order appoint¬ 
ing it will be issued by direction of the Secretary of War. 

Copy of 21510/1 and first indorsement. 

Subject: Orders. 

Office of the Chief of Engineers, 

United States Army, 
Washington, D. C., June 18, 1897. 

Hon. R. A. Alger, Secretary of War. 

Sir : The Chief of Engineers has authority to issue orders to the officers of 
the Corps of Engineers under his command for journeys in connection with the 
work to which such officers are assigned. 




40 RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


But it lias been customary heretofore to request the authority of the Secre¬ 
tary of War to issue such orders when it is the purpose to collect two or more 
officers as a board in any locality, for the purpose of securing information and 
the furnishing of advice and recommendations to the Chief of Engineers. 

It is respectfully recommended that the authority of the Chief of Engi¬ 
neers be so extended as to include the issuance of orders for such boards of 
engineer officers as may, in his opinion, be necessary for properly carrying 
out the work assigned to his charge. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

John M. Wilson, 

Brigadier General , Chief of Engineers, United States Army. 

[First indorsement.] 

War Department, June 2\, 1897. 

Approved. 

By order of the Secretary of War: 

John Tweedale, 

Chief Clerk. 

Extract from Engineer Regulations. Approved by the Secretary of War 

March 22, 1906. 

5. Journeys to be performed by officers of the Corps of Engineers on duty 
connected with river and harbor work, and with fortification work, may be 
ordered by the Chief of Engineers or approved by him when the emergency 
requiring the journey does not permit of obtaining an order previous to asking 
the journey. * * * 


Extract from Army Regulations, 1908. 

1511. The Chief of Engineers will have his headquarters at Washington, 
D. C., and will be charged, under the direction of the War Department, with 
the command of the Corps of Engineers, both staff and line, excepting such 
portions as are specifically detached by order of the War Department, and 
with the management of the Engineer Department, including the regulation of 
the duties of all officers, agents, and others who may be employed under his 
direction. 

The Adjutant General issues no orders to engineer officers under the com¬ 
mand of the Chief of Engineers, except in case of permanent change of station, 
or when the law distinctly requires the President or the Secretary of War to 
select members of boards and commissions, such as lighthouse members, engi¬ 
neer members of the Mississippi River Commission, etc., and when such officers 
are to be detached from duty under the Chief of Engineers. Also riding tests 
of officers on duty in Engineer Department and in Washington. 


FINALLY. 

% 

In any case where the Chief of Engineers is in responsible executive control 
of work, say, with his left hand, and that hand be paralyzed, there is no being 
in the universe competent to prevent his immediately seizing control of the 
same with his right hand, as long as he is sensible and can so do; nor is there 
anybody competent to scold or criticize him, or relieve him of the obligation to 
safeguard the works and interests in his hands, before reporting to any officer 
or anybody else, in case of emergency, of which he is and must be the sole 
judge. 

This is the general theory of an executive head. 

In this case it took The Adjutant General 4 days to communicate the confir¬ 
mation of an emergency action and 18 days to discover that the Secretary of 
War had confirmed an “unnecessary and unwarranted” act of the Chief of 
Engineers—a complete justification in itself of the immediate action by the 
Chief of Engineers in emergency. 

River and harbor and other construction works of the Corps of Engineers 
are under direction and control of the Secretary of War and the Chief of 
Engineers, and The Adjutant General has nothing to do with them. 

W. L. Marshall, Chief of Engineers. 



RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 41 


War Department, 

Office of the Judge Advocate General, 

rm . _ Washington, October 30, 1909. 

llie Acting Secretary of War. 

Sir. I beg leave to submit the following report upon the questions referred 
to this office for opinion in your indorsement of the 20tli instant. Before pro- 
ceeding to the discussion it is proper to say a word in respect to the functions 
ot the several staff departments which have been established from time to time 
^ ongiess with a view to assist the Secretary of War in the performance of 
his duties. 

Each of the staff departments which were recognized and continued in the 
general reorganization act of February 2, 1901 (31 Stat. L.. 748), was originally 
established by statute for the performance of certain specific duties. The 
duties with which they are charged are indicated in part by the titles of the 
several departments and in part by the officers created with a view to their 
performance. The establishment of an adjutant general’s department, for 
example, indicated an intention on the part of Congress to provide an agency 
or instrumentality for the performance of the duties of an adjutant general 
which were well known and understood at the date when that department was 
established. In some cases the Engineer. Quartermaster’s, and Subsistence 
Departments, for example, duties differing from or additional to those indi¬ 
cated by their titles have been expressly imposed by law. The General Regu¬ 
lations of the Army also prescribe duties to be performed by the chiefs of the 
several staff departments, and some of these general regulations prescribe, to 
some extent, the relations that have been established with a view to govern 
the heads of such departments in their relations to each other and to the 
Secretary of War. 

The duties of The Adjutant General are those indicated as pertaining to 
that office by its title. Executive regulations in furtherance of the statute have 
been framed specifying in considerable detail the precise duties with which 
The Adjutant General of the Army is charged. These are set forth fully in 
paragraph 777 of the Army Regulations, which provides that— 

“The Adjutant General’s Department is the department of records, orders, 
and correspondence of the Army and the militia. 

“ The Adjutant General is charged, under the direction of the Secretary of 
War and subject to the supervision of the Chief of Staff in all matters pertain¬ 
ing to the command, discipline, or administration of the existing military es¬ 
tablishment. with the duty of recording, authenticating, and communicating to 
troops and individuals in the military service all orders, instructions, and regu¬ 
lations issued by the Secretary of War through the Chief of Staff; of prepar¬ 
ing and distributing commissions; of compiling and issuing the Army Register 
and the Army List and Directory; of consolidating the general returns of the 
Army; of arranging and preserving the reports of officers detailed to visit 
encampments of militia; of preparing the annual returns of the militia required 
by law to be submitted to Congress; of managing the recruiting service, and of 
recording and issuing orders from the War Department remitting or mitigat¬ 
ing sentences of military convicts who have been discharged from the military 
service. 

“The Adjutant General is vested by law with the charge, under the Secretary 
of War, ‘of the military and hospital records of the volunteer armies and the 
pension and other business of the War Department connected therewith’ and 
of the publication and distribution of the Official Records of the War of the 
Rebellion. He also has charge of the historical records and business of the 
permanent military establishment, including all pension, pay, bounty, and 
other business pertaining to or based upon the military or medical histories of 
former officers or enlisted men. 

“The archives of The Adjutant General’s Office include: All military records 
of the Revolutionary War; the records of all organizations, officers, and enlisted 
men that have been in the military service of the United States since the 
Revolutionary War; the records of the movements and operations of troops: 
the medical and hospital records of the Army; all reports of physical examina¬ 
tion of recruits and all identification cards; the records of the Provost Marshal 
General’s Bureau; the records of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Aban¬ 
doned Lands; the Confederate records, including those pertaining to the legis¬ 
lative, executive, and judicial branches of the Confederate government. 

“Upon the muster out or discharge of volunteers or militia from the service 
of the United States all the records that pertain to them and that have not 


42 RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


already been filed in The Adjutant General’s Office will be transferred to and 
filed in that office. 

“The Adjutant General takes such steps as are necessary to complete or 
correct the records in his custody and answers all calls or inquiries that are 
answerable from those records and that do not require administrative action 
by other bureaus of the War Department. (Par. 777, Army Regulations, 1908.)” 

That the duties so prescribed have continued without substantial change for 
nearly 75 years is indicated by the corresponding requirements of the Army 
Regulations of 1835, which provide that: 

“ The Adjutant General is the channel through which are issued all orders 
emanating from the headquarters of the Army and all regulations necessary 
to be communicated to the troops. He is charged with the details of the 
service; with the record of all military appointments, promotions, resignations, 
deaths, and other casualties, as well as the inventories of the effects of deceased 
officers and soldiers; with the registery, making out, and distribution of all 
commissions of the Army and of the Militia of the District of Columbia; with 
the safe-keeping of the monthly returns of regiments and posts, and muster 
rolls of companies; the annual returns of the militia ; the proceedings of gen¬ 
eral courts-martial and the records of the War Department which relate to 
the personnel of the Army; with the duties connected with the recruiting 
service, and the enrollment of all enlisted soldiers, showing the description, date 
of enlistment, discharge, desertion, death, and everything connected with their 
military history; with examination of all applications for pensions previ¬ 
ously to their being sent to the Pension Office; and, finally, with the making 
out of the annual returns of the Army and the militia of the several States and 
Territories, and the publication of the annual Army Register. (Par. 1, Art. 
XLI, Army Regulations of 1835.) 

It is proper to say, also, that the questions in reference arose in the ordinary 
administration of the department, a matter which is entirely in the hands of 
the Secretary of War. as the representative of the President in the conduct of 
military affairs. As it is practically impossible for a cause of action to arise 
of a character to require adjudication by the courts in the ordinary and habitual 
relations between the Secretary of War and the heads of the several staff 
departments, there are not precedents, in the usual acceptation of that term, 
which would assist in the determination of the questions referred to this 
office for opinion; and* in passing upon the case decisive weight must be 
attributed to the approved practice of the department for the last 75 years in 
respect to the functions of The Adjutant General and his relations to the 
several staff departments and to the Army a large. 

It is an essential incident of departmental administration that there should 
be some office in which the action of the Secretary of War, in respect to the 
duty to which officers of the Army are assigned, shall be made a matter of 
official record: and that office should also be charged with the preparation and 
submission to the Secretary of War of orders changing the station of officers 
or appointing them to particular duties. The Adjutant General, from the 
nature of his office, constitutes the channel of communication between the 
heads of departments and the Secretary of War in such cases and in his office 
the record of the action of the Secretary thereon is made a matter of perma¬ 
nent record. 

With the disbursement of appropriation and with the relations betw r een the 
heads of the several staff departments and their subordinates in matters re¬ 
lating to the performance of the duties w r ith which they are charged by law 
not involving changes of station or affecting other interests than those com¬ 
mitted by law to a particular department of the staff for execution, The Adju¬ 
tant General has nothing to do. The requirements of the regulation in that 
regard are plain and prescribe that: 

“ Correspondence between an officer of a staff corps or department and the 
chief of the War Department bureau in which he is serving, which does not 
involve questions of administrative responsibility within the supervision of 
commanding officers outside that staff corps or department, nor relate to indi¬ 
vidual interests or status of a military nature requiring the action of authority 
outside that staff corps or department, and which is concerned exclusively with 
the business of that staff corps or department, will pass directly. All business 
emanating from the bureaus of the War Department requiring the action of 
higher authority will be submitted to the Chief of Staff for his consideration, 
either orally in person or in writing through The Adjutant General of the Army. 
In all cases the action of higher authority thereon will be communicated in 
writing by The Adjutant General of the Army to those concerned. Matters, 


RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 43 


however, of a purely civil nature will be submitted by chiefs of bureaus directly 
to the Secretary of War unless otherwise required by their subject matter. 
(Par. 780, Army Regulations of 1908.)” 

The necessity of such a central agency as that above described is apparent 
when the enormous volume of administrative work with which the War De¬ 
partment is charged is considered. As a result of such an orderly disposition 
of the business of the department as is contemplated in the foregoing extracts 
from the General Regulations of the Army, it is possible for the Secretary of 
Y\ ar to know at all times the exact stations of all officers of the Army and the 
nature of the duty upon which they are employed. He is also able to call for 
the entire record of a particular officer from the date of his original appointment 
to the Army, and in the operation of the existing system of efficiency reports, 
which are matters of record in The Adjutant General’s Office, he is enabled to 
call for the record showing not only the nature of the duty with which a par¬ 
ticular officer is charged but the manner in which that duty is performed, to¬ 
gether with an authoritative estimate of the capacity and adaptability of the 
officer along several lines of professional activity. 

It should also be borne in mind that several important enactments of Con¬ 
gress require that the methods of administration above indicated should be 
adhered to, and that a central bureau of record in respect to the stations, duties, 
and movements of commissioned officers of the Army should be constantly 
maintained. Such are the acts of July 29, 1876 (19 Stat. L., 102), and March 
2, 1901 (31 Stat. L., 902), regulating the pay status of officers on cumulative 
leave; the act of March 2, 1901 (31 Stat. L., 903), allowing additional pay for 
foreign service; sections 1243 and 1244 of the Revised Statutes, and the acts of 
June 30, 1882 (22 Stat. L.. 117), March 3, 1883 (22 Stat. L., 457), February 16, 
1891 (26 Stat. L., 763), etc., governing compulsory retirement, retirement for 
age and the retirement of officers at fixed ages or after specified periods of 
service. 

The duties of the Engineer Department, in respect to the construction, main¬ 
tenance, and operation of canals and works of river and harbor improvement, 
together with their work in connection with fortifications and seacoast defenses, 
are carried on under the direction of the Secretary of War and the Chief of 
Engineers, whose authority in respect thereto is measured by the enactments of 
Congress which prescribe their duties and responsibilities in that regard. It is 
only when the station of an officer is changed, or a leave of absence is granted, 
or a question of retirement is presented, that The Adjutant General becomes 
charged with the performance of certan dutes respecting the record sides of 
the several acts noted. It is believed that the necessity for the keeping of such 
official records and the several details of administration which are necessarily 
incident thereto have been made apparent. 

The following are the facts which furnished an occasion for the inclosed 
representations of the Chief of Engineers. Maj. Mclndoe, who had been as¬ 
signed to duty by the Secretary of War in charge of the engineer district of 
Portland, with station at Portland, Oreg., fell ill with typhoid fever; the case 
was a serious one, involving his relief from the status of active duty. Maj. 
Cavanaugh, who had been similarly assigned to duty in the office of the Chief 
of Engineers in Washington, was in Portland on leave of, absence when Maj. 
Mclndoe became ill. and communicated the facts in connection with Maj. 
Mclndoe’s illness to the Acting Chief of Engineers who, on September 3, 1909, 
directed Maj. Cavanaugh, by telegraph, to relieve Maj. Mclndoe of his duties 
as engineer in charge of the Portland district, and to take over the public funds 
in his possession. 

This action was reported to The Adjutant General, by telephone, about an 
hour before the close of official business on the same day. Col. Abbot, the 
Acting Chief of Engineers, was advised to make a full report of the case for 
submission to the Secretary of War. This report was furnished to The Adju¬ 
tant General on the same day, but was not received at the mail room of The 
Adjutant General’s Office until the close of office hours on the day following 
(Sept. 4). The War Department was closed on September 5 and 6 (Sun¬ 
day and Labor Day), and on September 7 the letter of the Acting Chief of 
Engineers was submitted to the Acting Chief of Staff, who. in the name of 
the Secretary of War, directed approval of the action taken. 

As the telegraphic correspondence between Maj. Cavanaugh and the Acting 
Chief of Engineers was not inclosed in the latter’s report of September 3. and 
this correspondence constituted an essential part of the case already submitted 
to the Acting Secretary of War, copies were called for by The Adjutant Gen- 


44 RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


eral on September S, and were promptly furnished. As some important omis¬ 
sions, in the matter of dates, etc*., were disclosed in the copies supplied to The 
Adjutant General, the originals of the telegrams to Maj. Cavanaugh and the 
Acting Chief of Engineers were called for by The Adjutant General, together 
with information in respect to certain correspondence between the former and 
the Lighthouse Board in respect to the substitution of Maj. Cavanaugh for 
Maj. Mclndoe as the agent of the Lighthouse Board in the district of Portland. 
It is sufficient to say, as to this aspect of the case, that the action taken by The 
Adjutant General was in conformity to the established practice of the depart¬ 
ment, and the action proposed to be taken upon the case presented by the Act¬ 
ing Chief of Engineers was submitted in each case to the Acting Chief of Staff 
and to the Assistant Secretary of War, or to both of those officers, and their 
directions in respect to such action were taken by an officer of The Adjutant 
General’s Department and made a matter of official record. 

The executive regulations applicable to the case, under which The Adjutant 
General acted in calling for information in respect to the relief of Maj. Mc¬ 
lndoe and the assignment of Maj. Cavanaugh, are embodied in paragraph 777 
of the Army Regulations, which provides that: 

“ * * * The Adjutant General is charged, under the direction of the Sec¬ 

retary of War, and subject to the supervision of the Chief of Staff in all 
matters pertaining to the command, discipline, or administration of the exist¬ 
ing military establishment, with the duty of recording, authenticating, and com¬ 
municating to troops and individuals in the military service all orders, instruc¬ 
tions. and regulations issued by the Secretary of War through the Chief of 
Staff * * *. (Par. 777, Army Regulations, 1908.)” 

The special reference which was necessary to complete the case for pur¬ 
poses of record and for submission to the Secretary of War, through the Chief 
of Staff, was authorized by the following requirement of executive regulations: 

“ The submission of matters to the Secretary by the Chief of Staff will be in 
person. Before presentation to either the Secretary or the Assistant Secretary 
the cases should be completed by obtaining the necessary recommendation, 
reports, or information from the bureaus of the department, or the military 
authorities outside of the department, and to this end the Chief of Staff is 
authorized to call therefor * By order of the Secretary of War.’ Paragraph 3, 
Order (E) of the Secretary of War of April 14, 1906.” 

The question presented in your indorsement of the 20th instant can now be 
discussed. First, an expression of opinion is desired as to the following 
question : 

“ 1. Did the Acting Chief of Engineers act within his rights when directing 
Maj. Cavanaugh to temporarily relieve Maj. Mclndoe? ” 

The assignment of officers of the several staff departments to stations is 
ordered by the Secretary of War. upon the applications of the heads of the 
several staff departments which are submitted to the Secretary of War through 
The Adjutant General in the operation of paragraphs 769, 787. and 789 of 
the Army Regulations. The orders of the Secretary of War directing such 
changes, instructions, or assignments are issued through The Adjutant General. 
In the case in reference Maj. Mclndoe was assigned to duty as engineer officer 
of the Portland district by the Secretary of War on the recommendations of 
the Chief of Engineers. Maj. Cavanaugh was similarly assigned by the same 
authority to duty in the office of the Chief of Engineers in this city. As the 
assignments were made originally by the Secretary of War, changes in such 
assignments could only be made by the same authority; or, to state the matter 
in somewhat different language, a change of station or an assignment in the 
case of a staff officer can only be accomplished in pursuance of an instrument 
purporting to be an order of the Secretary of War, and a change in such sta¬ 
tion can only be made in the operation of an instrument of equal dignity and 
authority. It is therefore the opinion of this office that the first questions 
should be answered in the negative, that the Chief of Engineers did not act 
within his rights in directing Maj. Cavanaugh to take station in Portland. 
Oreg., and relieve Maj. Mclndoe of his duties in charge of the engineer district 
of Portland. 

The second question is: 

“2. Has the Chief of Engineers authority without orders from the Secretary 
of War to assign to or relieve from duty, or order from point to point, such 
officers of his corps as are engaged (a) in river and harbor work; (b) upon 
fortification work?” 

It is the opinion of this office that this question too must be answered in part 
in the negative. The case presented in the papers in reference involved the 


BELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 45 


relief of one officer who had been assigned to a station of duty by the Secre- 
tary of W ar. It has been seen that, where an officer lias been so assigned, his 
lelief can only be accomplished in the operation of an order of equal authority 
and sanction; that is, the relief of Maj. Mclndoe and the assignment of Maj. 
Cavanaugh to duty at Portland, Oreg.. could only be accomplished, under the 
existing and long-established practice of the department, in the operation of 
Instructions issuing in the name of the Secretary of War. 

A different case is presented in the operation of paragraph 194, Engineer 
Regulations of June 26, 1902, which provides that— 

“ 194. Prior order or subsequent approval necessary. —Travel must be covered 
by a specific order issued prior to tlie commencement of the journey. Such 
orders will be issued only where the journey is on account of and indispensable 
to the public service. 

“ M here urgent public duty requires travel without previous orders, the case 
must be reported without delay to the proper superior, whose approval, in sub¬ 
sequent orders, shall be accepted in lieu of a previous order in the case. 

" In every case where the necessity for a journey on duty connected with any 
of the works of the Engineer Department can be foreseen in time to receive 
an answer before the desired date of departure, the order contemplated in the 
above extract will be asked for. 

“ In any case where the necessity for a journey can not he foreseen in time to 
receive an answer before the desired date of departure, the journey will be 
made and approval will be requested, as stated above. 

“ In the former case the intended date of departure will be stated approxi¬ 
mately. In the latter case the dates of departure and return to station, and 
the fact that the necessity for the journey could not have been foreseen will 
be stated, and in either case the reasons for the journey will be set forth in 
such manner that the Chief of Engineers may judge of the necessity for the 
journey.” 

As subsequently amended in the operation of Circular 46, Corps of Engi¬ 
neers. of 1906, subparagraph 1 of paragraph 194 reads as follows: 

”194-1. Prior authority required except in extreme emergencies. —In view of 
the requirements of Army Regulations 1313. as modified by General Order 144, 
W. I).. 1906. officers of the Corps of Engineers will, in general, await orders or 
telegraphic authority before beginning official journeys for which they expect 
to ask mileage. The telegraph may be used, by day or night, in asking orders 
in cases justifying the cost. In extreme emergencies the journey may be made 
without prior orders, but then a full report clearly showing not only the ur¬ 
gency of the journey, but also the impossibility before starting of securing tele¬ 
graphic authority, must be submitted; unless the report be such as to satisfy 
the Chief of Engineers on the latter point, approval of the journey will not be 
given. (Cir. 46, C. of E., 1906.)” 

It will be noted that the foregoing requirements of regulations have exclu¬ 
sive application to cases of emergency and are also restricted in their opera¬ 
tion to cases in which the emergency is such that the necessity for the journey 
“can not be foreseen in time to receive an answer before the desired date of 
departure.” In the case under discussion no such case of emergency existed. 
Maj. Mclndoe’s illness was unexpected, but the Chief of Engineers was ap¬ 
prised by telegraph of his condition, which was such as to suggest immediate 
action. The telegram was received during office hours on September 3. 1909, 
when The Adjutant General, the Acting Chief of Staff, and the Assistant Sec¬ 
retary of War were present in their offices in the War Department building 
and in a situation to attend to any matters of public business that might be 
presented to them. It will also be observed that the regulations last above cited 
have relation, not to changes of station and duties, but to travel to be per¬ 
formed on the public business. 

It is therefore the opinion of this office that, for the reasons above stated, 
it is beyond the authority of the Chief of Engineers to assign officers of the 
Corps of Engineers to duty, or to relieve them from an existing assignment, 
without the order of the Secretary of War. The authority of the Chief of En¬ 
gineers to order officers of his corps from point to point, who are engaged in 
the construction of fortifications or in the establishment or maintenance of 
works of river and harbor improvement, depends upon other regulations than 
those which controlled the Acting Chief of Engineers in his action in respect to 
the relief of Maj. Mclndoe and the assignment of Maj. Cavanaugh to duty in 
Portland, Oreg. 

It is proper to say a word in conclusion in respect to the power of the Chief 
of Engineers to authorize officers of the Engineer Corps to travel on business ' 


46 RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


connected with the prosecution of river and harbor improvements and other 
civil works which are intrusted to the Corps of Engineers for execution. It 
will be observed that the statutes and regulations, presently to be cited, relate 
to orders directing travel, ancl not to orders directing changes of station and 
duty, which, as has been seen, are issued by the Secretary of War upon the 
recommendation of the head of a staff department, which is submilted to the 
Secretary of War through The Adjutant General, by whom the necessary 
orders are prepared and in whose office the orders of the Secretary of War, 
and the papers upon which such orders are based, are made the subject of 
pemanent official record. 

The following enactments of Congress and decisions of accounting officers, 
with the Executive regulations in furtherance thereof, govern in all matters 
relating to the travel of officers of engineers in connection with civil works, 
including the construction and maintenance of canals, bridges, dams, and works 
of river and harbor improvement. It is a fundamental rule in the disburse¬ 
ment of the appropriations of Congress to regard expenses incurred in travel, 
which is necessary in the construction of a particular work or the expenditure 
of a particular appropriation, as a proper charge against the work in connection 
with which the travel is undertaken. It has been held by the Comptroller of 
the Treasury that: 

“ The mileage allowance of officers of the Corps of Engineers when traveling 
on duty connected with river and harbor improvements, being an expense neces¬ 
sarily incidental to and incurred on account of such work, is properly payable 
from the appropriations therefor and not from the appropriation ‘ Pay of the 
Army,’ at the special rates prescribed by Army acts for mileage payable from 
said appropriation.” (Ill Dig., 2d Comp. Dec., par. 290.) 

Such is the case also in respect to travel performed in connection with other 
civil works not relating to the military establishment—the Panama Canal, for 
example, the construction and maintenance of which is committed, by statute 
or by Executive discretion, to the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers. 
To that end the General Regulations of the Army contain the following 
requirement: 

“An officer traveling on duty in connection with public works (not arsenals, 
military surveys, or explorations) will receive travel allowances from the appro¬ 
priation for the work; but if there be no appropriation he will receive mileage 
from the Pay Department.” (Par. 1815, Army Regulations of 1908.) 

The act of September 16, 1890, provides that: 

“ In determining the mileage of officers of the Corps of Engineers traveling 
without troops on duty connected with works under their charge, no deduction 
shall be made for such travel as may be necessary on free or bond-aided or land 
grant railways.” (Sec. 15, act of Sept. 16, 1890, 26 Stat. L., 456.) 

The current act of appropriation for the support of the Army contains the 
following requirement: 

“ Engineer School, Washington, D. C. * * * For travel expenses of 

officers on journeys approved by the Chief of Engineers and made for the pur¬ 
pose of instruction: Provided, That the traveling expenses herein provided for 
shall be in lieu of mileage and other allowances; * * * .” (Act of Mar. 3, 

1909, 36 Stat. L., 749.) 

The Engineer Regulations approvied by the Secretary of War on June 26, 
1902, and March 2, 1906, contain the following requirements: 

“ 5. Journeys to be performed by officers of the Corps of Engineers on duty 
connected with river and harbor work and with fortification work may be 
ordered by the Chief of Engineers or approved by him when the emergency 
requiring the journey does not permit of obtaining an order previous to making 
the journey. In the latter case the officer should certify upon the mileage 
voucher ‘ that urgent public duty required the journey to be performed without 
previous orders,’ and the voucher must be accompanied by the approval of the 
journey by the Chief of Engineers or superior officer. 

“ 16. The orders of the senior officer of the board shall be authority for jour¬ 
neys made by its members and associates and for the necessary expenditures 
incurred-by the board in pursuance of its duties, but the authority of the Chief 
of Engineers must be obtained by the senior officer of the board for all jour¬ 
neys made by the board or members thereof to localities other than the usual 
place of meeting. 

“ Payment of mileage and for these expenditures shall be made from the 
appropriation for works of river and harbor improvement when the duty is 
•connected with such works. 


RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 47 


“ 192. Necessity for travel. —Applications to the Chief of Engineers for orders 
to travel, in addition to the requirements of General Orders, No. 3, 1880. H. Q. 
C. of E. (194, 195), will contain a certificate of the following form : * This travel 
is necessary for the public service.’ (Par. 1, G. O. 6, C. of E., 1882.) 

“ 193. General authority not to he given. —The regulations respecting orders to 
travel on duty contemplate that, as a rule, an order shall cover a single journey 
only. General authorities to officers to visit their works or make other journevs 
at their discretion will not be issued. {Par. 2, G. O. 6, C. of E., 1882.) 

“ 194-1. Prior authority required except in extreme emergencies. —In view of 
the requirements of Army Regulations 1313, as modified by General Order 144, 
War Department, 1906, officers of the Corps of Engineers will, in general, await 
orders or telegraphic authority before beginning official journeys for which they 
expect to ask mileage. The telegraph may be used, by day or night, in asking 
orders in cases justifying the cost. In extreme emergencies the journey may 
be made without prior orders, but then a full report clearly showing not only 
the urgency of the journey but also the impossibility before starting of securing 
telegraphic authority must be submitted; unless the report be such as to satisfy 
the Chief of Engineers on the latter point, approval of the journey will not be 
given. (Cir. 46, C. of E., 1906.) 

“195. Visits to works on same general route. —Visits to works upon the same 
general route of travel will be made, as far as practicable, in the same journey, 
and separate orders to visit such works should not be asked for except in cases 
where the interests of the service make separate journeys indispensable. (G. O. 
3, C. of E., 1880.) 

*“1907. Payment of mileage. —Officers of the Corps of Engineers, or those on 
engineer duty, traveling on service connected with works of public improvement 
which are not of a military nature, will be paid their travel allowances from 
the special appropriations for the work. When traveling on duty connected 
with fortifications or on any other military duty the mileage will be paid by 
the Pay Department. (A. R. 1536, modified to date in accordance with decision 
of the Comptroller of the Treasury, published in Cir. 23, C. of E.. 1905.) 

“ 199. Citations and cross references : 

“(a) As to travel on duty by officers, see Army Regulations 68-75. 

“(ft) For general provisions regarding mileage for officers traveling on mili¬ 
tary duty, see Army Regulations 1307-1326, paragraph 1316, amended by Gen¬ 
eral Order 189, War Department, 1904, and paragraph 1320, by General Order 
135, War Department, 1905. 

“(d) As to orders by the Chief of Engineers for travel, or subsequent ap¬ 
proval thereof by him, see E. R. 5. 

“(e) As to travel by members and associates of the Board of Engineers, see 
E. R. 16. 

“(h) As to visits by officers to works within and works without their dis¬ 
tricts, see Circular 6, Chief of Engineers, 1896, 517, 518. 

“ 517. Visits by officers within their districts. Officers are authorized to visit 
works in their charge and within their districts as often as, in their opinion, 
the good of the work requires; but it should be noted on personal reports 
whether such visits are made with or without orders. (Cir. 6, C. of E., 1896.) 

«518. Visits by officers outside their districts. Officers are not authorized 
to visit other works or go beyond the limits of their districts or absent them¬ 
selves on any duty not immediately connected with the official work in their 
charge without special and proper authority, except to take advantage of an 
authorized leave or under the provisions of Army Regulations 64. (Cir. 6, 
C. of E., 1896.)” 

Very respectfully, Geo. B. Davis, 

Judge Advocate General. 


[Memorandum for the Secretary of War.] 

War Department, 
Washington , November .'/, 1909. 

The Acting Chief of Engineers, deeming that an emergency existed, issued 
an order directly and followed it up, in accordance with regulations, by ob¬ 
taining through The Adjutant General the approval of his action by the Secre¬ 
tary of War. . . . 

The Adjutant General, on sending for the necessary papers to complete the 
files in his office, was of the opinion, in so far as the papers showed, that an 



48 EE LIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


emergency did not exist and tliat the order should have been issued through 
the proper channel as provided by the regulations. 

The matter was submitted to the Acting Chief of Staff and the Acting Secre¬ 
tary of War, and the attention of the Acting Chief of Engineers was called to the 
fact that his action was, so far as the facts shown were concerned, unwarranted 
and unnecessary, and it so appeared so far as shown by my papers in the case 
at that time. 

The Chief of Engineers then submitted a statement from the Acting Chief 
of Engineers, which amplified the record, going to show that the Acting Chief 
of Engineers had acted for the best in his belief and that it was only a question 
of judgment as to whether what he had done was not necessary and war¬ 
ranted ; and, in view of the facts submitted by him, it seems fair to believe 
that he acted for the best and that the question was simply a difference of 
opinion. Had this been the only material in the indorsement of the Chief of 
Engineers it would have closed the matter, which was of very little consequence. 
Unfortunately the Chief of Engineers considered the indorsement referred to as 
a reprimand, which it evidently was not, and submitted a very intemperate 
and unnecessary statement reflecting upon The Adjutant General and intro¬ 
ducing matters that were not germane to the case, the result of which was that 
The Adjutant General stated his position in a most caustic indorsement, em¬ 
bodying therein much that was unnecessary. 

The matter was then submitted to tbe Acting Chief of Staff, who reported 
upon the matter most temperately and explained the cause for his action in 
approving the indorsement in question. No possible benefit to the service can 
be gained by submitting these indorsements to the Chief of Engineers and it 
is recommended that the matter be laid aside, except in so far-as the paragraph 
in which the Chief of Engineers states that he was under no obligation to seek 
an order through The Adjutant General from the Secretary of War to take 
the action which he did. This necessitated a decision as to the powers of the 
Chief of Engineers regarding his subordinate officers. The papers were accord¬ 
ingly submitted to the Judge Advocate General, and he sustains the contention 
of The Adjutant General entirely in this particular case. It is recommended 
that no further action be taken, except possibly to issue a regulation defining 
the powers of the Chief of Engineers as regards his authority as to the issuance 
of orders to his subordinates. This can be stated, apparently, in a few words, 
as he seems to be limited to the issuance of orders direct to his officers, to those 
who are engaged on civil work and whose expenses and transportation are paid 
from the appropriation made for such civil work. In all other cases involving 
change of station or duty he is subject to the same regulations as those imposed 
upon other chiefs of bureaus. 

(No signature.) 

Assistant Secretary of War. 

Your committee lias thus gone very fully into an examination 
and explanation of these papers because of the use which has been 
made of garbled extracts from them to get rid of the services of 
one of the most accomplished and useful officers of the Army—an 
officer who for more than 25 years has rendered inestimable service 
to the country, and by that service has saved much money and time, 
a service which has been recognized time and again by Congress; 
and in the opinion of your committee he has been guilty of no act 
which justifies the letter of the Secretary of War and resulted in 
the country's loss of his activities when they were most needed. 
Anyone who will give the same attention to these papers which we 
have must inevitably come to the conclusion that Gen. Ainsworth 
was blameless in every one of the instances cited against him by the 
Secretary of War as evidences of official misconduct. He acted 
in compliance with orders of superior authority. He occupied a 
most responsible position; he had at his command information not 
obtainable from any other source concerning the subjects under con¬ 
sideration, and it was his imperative duty to state his own knowl¬ 
edge and the results of his own experience as to these subjects, 
regardless of whether his views coincided with those of others or 


RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 49 

not. This he did fearlessly, frankly, and forcibly, and in doing so 
he gave no just cause of offense to any person, either superior, equal, 
or subordinate in rank or station, unless that person be one who 
regards the expression of an honest difference of opinion as an 
offense, or unless he be the unreasonable advocate of a proposition 
the worthlessness or danger of which has been exposed. The expe¬ 
rience of this committee makes it regret all the more the absence 
of a fearless and honest spirit from the Army at a time when such 
attributes are so essential to aid it in coming to right conclusions 
on the many vexed problems which are now and will in the near 
future be placed before it for solution. 

Your committee can only conclude from the record that these 
charges and accusations had their origin in prejudice, if not vin¬ 
dictiveness, and a determination to drive Gen. Ainsworth from 
active service, and have nothing to support them but bare assertion 
coupled with misrepresentation and the suppression of the truth. It 
is incredible to your committee that the Secretary of War or any in¬ 
telligent adviser of his could have made these accusations in the 
honest belief that Gen. Ainsworth was guilty of any one of the 
offenses charged against him with shell unnecessary vehemence and 
couched in such intemperate language. Some other reason must have 
actuated the Secretary of War in making them, and that other reason 
is not hard to find. Your committee, being familiar with all the 
different phases of the legislative features in the Army appropria¬ 
tion, bill can very readily account for this violent assault on Gen. 
Ainsworth. On May 17, 1911, in response to a summons from this 
committee, and not at his own suggestion, Gen. Ainsworth appeared 
before this committee for a hearing on the bill then pending to fix 
the term of enlistment in the Army at five years. He expressed 
himself frankly and freely in favor of the measure, and his reasons 
for favoring the bill were so cogent, so convincing, and so clearly 
stated as to carry conviction of their soundness to the minds of many 
if not to those of most of the members of the committee. Subse¬ 
quently the War Department entered upon a campaign of bitter 
hostility against this measure—a campaign unprecedented in the his¬ 
tory of such legislation; it used the newspapers, the Organized 
Militia, or such of them as it could influence, officers of the Army, 
enlisted men, and other means to influence Members of Congress. 
Notwithstanding all this opposition, the five-year enlistment plan 
was adopted by this committee and reported by it as a part of the 
Army appropriation bill. 

The statement made by Gen. Ainsworth before the committee was 
included in full in the report accompanying that bill, and his views 
as thus set out in the report were generally regarded, and justly so, 
as the strongest arguments in support of the measure. He was also 
charged, although falsely so, with advocating to the committee, or 
some of its members, some of the other features of general legislation 
which were incorporated in the bill, and against which the War De¬ 
partment was conducting a campaign of opposition, although in the 
inception of the legislation the War Department had favored it. 
Clearly it was to the interest of those opposing these measures to disr 
credit Gen. Ainsworth and his views. The opportunity seemed to 
present itself, for it was well known to every one concerned, the offi- 


H. Rept. 508, 62-2- 4 



50 RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 

cials of the War Department included, that the five-year enlistment 
plan and other general legislative provisions in the Army appropria¬ 
tion bill would come to a vote in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union on February 15, 1912. On that day, as 
stated by the daily newspapers, the letter of the Secretary of War of 
February 14, relieving Gen. Ainsworth from the duties of his office, 
was served upon him. Soon afterward, if not before, a copy of that 
letter was in the hands of a Representative, who, in due time, offered 
it to be read on the floor of the House in the midst of an assault on 
the five-year enlistment provision, and on the heels of a fierce and bit¬ 
ter attack on Gen. Ainsworth. The copy of the letter was read after 
some delay and appears on pages 2218 and 2219 of the Congressional 
Record of February 15. The Member who offered it stated that it 
was a copy of the “ original document,” giving the reasons why Gen. 
Ainsworth had “ within the last few hours ” been relieved from duty. 
The reasons for rushing a copy of this letter to the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives and for the use made of it there are obvious. Thus a be¬ 
lievable explanation is afforded, which the letter itself does not, as 
to why Gen. Ainsworth was relieved from the duties of his office. 

In the opinion of your committee great and irreparable wrong has 
been done by the letter of the Secretary of War of February 14, 1912. 
Because of its high source, the accusations made in it will be accepted 
as true by the majority of those reading it, whereas few people will 
ever see or hear of this or any other exposure of its true character 
and design. 

If in the history of this country there was ever a more flagrant 
abuse of official authority than that which was consummated when 
the letter in question was served on Gen. Ainsworth and copies of it 
given simultaneously to the world, this committee has never heard of 
it. And the worst feature of it was that this officer of long and dis¬ 
tinguished service had no tribunal to which he could appeal with any 
hope of receiving justice or fair treatment. For the letter shows 
upon its face that both the President and the Secretary of War, and 
doubtless their immediate military advisers, had prejudged the case 
without giving Gen. Ainsworth any opportunity to present his side 
of it. 

As to what Gen. Ainsworth did after being summarily relieved 
from the duties of his office, and as to his motives for doing it, this 
committee has no information except the statement which appeared 
in the public press to the effect that he voluntarily applied for retire¬ 
ment from active service upon the suggestion of a United States 
Senator, who had been assured by the President that the case would 
be closed and no action taken against him if he applied for retire¬ 
ment. At all events, it appears from a transcript of the military 
record of Gen. Ainsworth furnished this committee by the War 
Department that after more than 37 years’ service he was retired on 
the 16th of February, 1912. 

Your committee in making this report has been actuated solely by 
the desire to set out at length what seems to it to be the truth about 
the case, and to do justice to an officer of the Army, who for more 
than 25 years had remained at his post of duty, and had discharged 
faithfully and efficiently, as well as with unusual ability, the very 
responsible duties of his position. Indeed, every department of the 
Army to which he has been attached has been bettered by his treat- 


RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 51 

ment of it, and he leaves the service with the well-deserved plaudits 
of all fair and unprejudiced men. 

J his committee received from Gen. Ainsworth, nor from anyone 
in his behalf, no request or suggestion that this matter should be 
made the subject of any action by the committee. His views are 
unknown to this committee; but common justice dictated that this 
action should be taken, and that Congress should be informed of all 
the facts in the case. 


APPENDIX I. 


War Department, 
Washington, February U), 1012. 

Sir: On the l.>th of December last you were handed a memorandum direct¬ 
ing you to submit to the office of the Chief of Staff your opinion on a proposi¬ 
tion to abolish the present separate muster roll and to so modify the form of the 
descriptive list, the pay roll, and other organization returns as to enable those 
papers to include and perform the functions of the separate muster roll. A 
synopsis of the proposition and its purposes was contained in the memorandum, 
and you were directed, in case any features of the proposition were in your 
opinion inadvisable or impracticable, to give a statement showing in detail 
wherein it was so considered inadvisable or impracticable. The said proposition 
was being considered by the officers of the War College and of the General Staff, 
with my knowledge and by my authority, as part of an effort to simplify the 
system of keeping military records in the War Department, and was intended to 
be in harmony with the efforts now being made by the President, through the 
President’s Commission on Economy and Efficiency, in the direction of simplifi 
cation and reform. The memorandum recited on its face that it was given to 
you by my direction. 

In reply to his order you submitted to the Chief of Staff on February 9 a 
memorandum dated February 3. In this paper you impugn the fairness and 
intelligence of the Secretary of War, under whose authority the proposition in 
question was submitted to you. You also criticize and impugn the military 
capacity and experience, the intelligence and fair-mindedness, and, finally, ques¬ 
tion the honor and good faith of the officers of the General Staff and tiie War 
College, whose plan you were directed to discuss. 

Thus, in response to my direction that you submit your opinion upon a propo¬ 
sition, the ultimate decision as towhicli rests with me, you say: 

“ In compliance with the second part of the accompanying call, the following 
statement is submitted, although it is recognized that it will be difficult if not 
impossible to formulate any statement that will carry conviction to anyone 
who is so unmindful of consequences, or so uninformed as to the needs of the 
Government and the public with regard to the matter in question, as seriously 
to propose to abolish one of the most important, if not the most important, of 
all the records of the War Department. However, the statement is submitted 
in the confident expectation that when other, if not wiser, counsels shall prevail 
and after experience with the proposed plan or any similar plan shall have 
shown the inevitable evil effects thereof, this statement will receive the con¬ 
sideration that may not be given to it now.” 

You say further, after quoting article 12 of the Articles of War: 

“ It is proposed in the accompanying memorandum of the Chief of Staff to 
evade this requirement of law by calling the pay rolls of June 30 and December 
31 ‘ muster and pay rolls,’ entering thereon the data required by article 12, 
yet maintaining the monthly ceremony of muster. But the adoption of this 
proposal could hardly fail to be regarded generally as a mere subterfuge of a 
kind that would be scorned by honorable men in any of the relations of private 
life, and that would be most discreditable to a great department of the Gov¬ 
ernment in its management of the affairs of the Nation.” 

And further: 

“ The proponents of the truly remarkable plan now under discussion have 
betrayed a lamentable lack of knowledge of the nature and uses of our so-called 
descriptive list, of which it is proposed that there shall be made but a single 
copy, which shall follow the soldier throughout his entire enlistment. If they 



52 RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 


had had, or had profited by, even a little service as company commanders in i 

recent years, they would have learned that our descriptive list is primarily an ^ 

organization record, and the only approach to a complete record of its men that 
any organization has.” 

And again: 

“ The cool assurance with which it is asserted in the memorandum that ‘ it 
would make no difference ’ if other data could not be obtained, ‘ such as a 
complete record of extra duty, special duty, detached service, etc.,’ evidences 
such ignorance of the vital bearing that many of the data so lightly spoken of, 
but which, if lost, could never be supplied from any record source, have upon a 
multitude of pension and other claims that it would be a loss of time and effort 
to discuss the subject further here. 

“There are other grave objections to the proposed plan that might be stated, 
but if those that have been pointed out are not sufficient to carry to the minds 
of those with whom the decision of this matter now rests, the conviction not 
only that the proposed plan is both illegal and impracticable, but that it is most 
inadvisable ever to intrust to incompetent amateurs the management of busi¬ 
ness that is of nation-wide importance and that can only be managed pru¬ 
dently, safely, and efficiently by those whom long service has made experts 
with regard to it, then it will be worse than useless to present further facts 
or arguments here.” 

This is not an isolated instance of insubordination and impropriety on your 
part, nor is it made in the absence of warning as to the necessary consequences 
of such an outburst. On the 5th of September last you submitted to me a 
memorandum in which you, by insinuation, charged the Chief of Staff with im¬ 
proper motives in his proposed action of relieving certain officers of the recruit¬ 
ing services. You stated in that memorandum: 

“ Col. Murray and Maj. Dugan were so unfortunate as to be compelled not 
long ago to appear before tlie Committee on Military Affairs of the House of 
Representatives for examination with regard to a bill that proposed to increase 
the enlistment period of the Army to five years. In response to questions 
addressed to them by the committee, they expressed views that were at variance 
with views subsequently expressed to the same committee by the Chief of Staff. 
Considerable publicity, for which Col. Murray and Maj. Dugan were in no wise 
responsible, was given by the press to this difference of opinion. And doubtless 
there are those who, not knowing or not believing that the Chief of Staff is too 
high-minded and conscientious to permit his official action to be influenced by 
such a matter, will be swift to conclude, if these two officers are relieved or 
superseded now, that the Chief of Staff is endeavoring to punish them because 
they gave testimony that may be regarded as damaging to his own, and that 
the solicitude now manifested in behalf of a few superfluous colonels, with none 
manifested in behalf of superfluous lieutenant colonels, is merely a pretext for 
a movement whose object is to annoy or humiliate certain officers connected 
with the recruiting service and to discredit the management of that 
service. * * * 

“ Of course, any such conclusion as that referred to here would be erroneous, 
but it is believed to be the part of wisdom not to give Congress, the public at 
large, or the Army any ground upon which to base it, at least at the present 
time.” 

I then, on September 19, wrote you from Huntington, Long Island, a per¬ 
sonal letter of warning in respect to your conduct in submitting that memor¬ 
andum, as follows: 

“ I only wish to add that I greatly regret and reprobate certain passages of 
your memorandum and of the letter which you sent me. Nothing is gained by 
suspecting or intimating ulterior motives on the part of those with whom we 
have to act in association. In an organization as large and complex as the 
War Department it is impossible that every action taken shall seem the wisest 
possible to all of the members of that department. Many orders must be given 
and steps taken which, to some bureau or some individual, seem ill advised and 
unfortunate. But in such cases and in all cases the "President has a right to 
expect that all of the officers of the department will act as a unit, with faith 
in each other’s motives even if they differ as to judgments. In no other way 
can the morals of the Army or its organization be maintained for a moment.” 

In considering w T hether these offenses against propriety on your part are 
merely exceptional cases of rudeness and ill temper, I find that they have be¬ 
come habitual on your part and have occurred under other administrations of 
the War Department and concerning other officers than those of the General 


RELIEF OF ADJUTANT GENERAL FROM DUTIES OF OFFICE. 53 


Staff. I find that on March 25, 3911, in a memorandum rendered by you rela¬ 
tive to certain recommendations that had been made by various officers of the 
Army directed toward the end of reducing unnecessary paper work in the 
administration of the military organization, you used the following language: 

“All these recommendations are disapproved, with a. few relatively unim¬ 
portant exceptions hereinafter noted. Almost all of them show on the part of 
those making them a deplorable ignorance of or indifference to the require¬ 
ments of law with regard to the rendition of these returns and rolls and the 
purposes for which they are rendered. Such ill-considered and impracticable 
recommendations afford convincing proof of the futility of calling upon officers 
of the Army generally for an expression of their views with regard to the paper 
work that they are required to perform.” 

The recommendations to which you in that memorandum thus referred had 
been made by 16 officers of the Army of experience and ability, including 3 
department commanders and the Superintendent of the Military Academy. 

On October 16. 1909, in speaking of another general officer in the War 
Department, the head of one of its most important bureaus, you used in an 
official document the following language: 

“Life is too short to permit of wasting any portion of it in discussion with, 
or for the benefit of. anyone whose conception of the underlying principles of 
military administration is so hazy that he can advocate such a proposition 
seriously. A proposition of this kind would be regarded as remarkable if ad¬ 
vanced by a State militiaman, and it is simply amazing when put forward by 
an officer of the Regular Army, even though his connection with the military 
side of that establishment be so remote as to be merely nominal.” 

Your present action, which, because of the prior warning received and the 
length of time consumed in the preparation of your present memorandum, 
must be deemed deliberate, is therefore but the culmination of a series of out¬ 
breaks evidencing such intolerance of subordination and such readiness to 
impugn either the motives or the intelligence of those with whom it is your 
duty to work in association as, if uncorrected, to destroy your usefulness in 
your present office. It is impossible that the business of the Government shall 
be properly conducted if official communications are made the occasion for 
contemptuous comments and aspersions upon fellow officers and for insolence to 
superiors. Under such circumstances self-respect would forbid that cooperation 
which is necessary to effective service. This is especially true in the military 
service, where due subordination and respect to superior officers is essential 
to the maintenance of discipline. 

As I am myself apparently included in your latest attack, I have preferred 
to deem myself disqualified from judicial action thereon and have laid the 
matter before the President as Commmander in Chief. He directs that, pend¬ 
ing consideration of the disciplinary measures to be taken, you be forthwith 
relieved from duty in your present office. You will therefore upon receipt of 
this order stand relieved of your duties in the office of The Adjutant General 
and will await further orders in this city. Col. H. P. McCain, adjutant general, 
has been directed to assume the duties surrendered by you 
Very respectfully. 


Henry L. Stimson, 

Secretary of War. 


Maj. Gen. Fred C. Ainsworth, 

The Adjutant General, United States Army, Washington, D. ( 7 . 


o 


/ 

t 



















































































































































































































. _ I 










62d Congress, ) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, j Rept. 508, 

'lid Session. f | Part 2. 


RELIEF OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE ARMY FROM 
THE DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE. 


May 10, 1912.—Ordered to be printed. 


a o- 

Mr. Prince, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the 

following 

VIEWS OF THE MINORITY. 

[To accompany H. Doc. 619.] 

We deem it proper to make respectful protest against the method 
by which the paper purporting to be the report of the majority has 
been prepared and filed. Although it purports to give the views of 
a majority of this committee in a quasi-judicial review of the papers 
submitted by the Secretary of War, as a matter of fact it has never 
been considered or the evidence and facts fully discussed before a 
meeting of the committee. No member of the minority had seen the 
report before it was filed. And although the chairman obtained the 
authority of a majority of the committee to file a report on this 
matter, there has never been discussed before the committee even 
the general character of the report to be submitted, far less any con¬ 
sideration of the extreme statements made in the report actually filed. 
The authority of one of the House’s most important committees 
should not be given to intemperate statements of a paper which has 
never been laid before that committee. 

This is not the ordinary report accompanying a bill which has been 
discussed and passed upon by the committee, but it is in the nature 
of a quasi-judicial opinion upon questions of fact which have never 
been discussed or considered at any regular or special meeting of the 
committee. 

On February 9 last The Adjutant General of the Army in response 
to a direction of the Secretary of War, conveyed through the Chief of 
Staff, filed a memorandum dated February 3. This memorandum 
contained statements which nobody, civilian or military, can read 
without recognizing that when addressed to a superior officer they 
were of a highly insubordinate character. On February 15, or six 
days afterwards, the Secretary of War, by an order made by direction 
of the President as Commander in Chief, relieved The Adjutant General 








2 


RELIEF OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE ARMY. 


vy & 



from duty in his office and directed him to await further orders in 
Washington pending the consideration of disciplinary measures to be 
taken. The following day, February 16, The Adjutant General ap¬ 
plied for retirement from the active list of the Army, and was imme¬ 
diately, on the President’s order, placed upon the retired list. As is 
stated in the report of the majority, it was the general understanding 
at the time that The Adjutant General took this step in order to avoid 
a court-martial on charges of insubordination. 

It is difficult to imagine facts which present a case more com¬ 
pletely and solely within the jurisdiction of the Executive than the 
foregoing. By the Constitution the President is the Commander in 
Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and upon him rests 
the responsibility for the discipline of that service. 

These papers show that the question of Gen. Ainsworth’s conduct 
in submitting this memorandum of February 3 was submitted directly 
to the President, and that each step thereafter was taken by his 
orders. It is as completely beyond the province of this House or any 
of its committees to review his conduct in taking these steps as it 
would be beyond their jurisdiction to review his action in approving 
or setting aside the judgment of a court-martial. What would become 
of the discipline of our fighting force if Congress or its committees 
should deem themselves free to take up cudgels against the Com¬ 
mander in Chief on behalf of an officer whom he has disciplined? 
How long would the morale of the Army or Navy last under such cir¬ 
cumstances ? Such a proposition needs only to be stated to have its 
absurdity demonstrated. We submit, therefore, that this report on 
its face shows itself to be a wholly unconstitutional attempt to assert 
powers not within the jurisdiction of this committee. 

But inasmuch as the report of the majority has assumed to go into 
the facts of the case, We deem it proper to set out our dissenting views 
as to these facts, even though we believe that the entire subject is 
wholly outside the province of this committee. 

No one doubts that Gen. Ainsworth is an able officer or that he 
has rendered efficient service in his bureau. But, on the other hand, 
no fair-minded man can read the papers submitted to this committee 
without being convinced that his outbursts of intolerance toward 
other officers must have greatly impaired the usefulness of his work. 
Military discipline is built upon a dual foundation of respect toward 
superiors and courtesy toward subordinates. The record contains 
plentiful illustrations of Gen. Ainsworth’s shortcomings in both 
respects. The attempted defense offered in the report of the majority 
that in his last memorandum of February 3 Gen. Ainsworth in¬ 
tended to criticize, not the Secretary of War but merely two junior 
officers, shows a complete misapprehension of these elementary 
requirements of military life. Even if that had been his intent, he 
had no right to couch his criticism in terms of disrespect and dis¬ 
courtesy, to inveigh against alleged ignorance, and to impute dis¬ 
honorable motives or methods. 

But the proposition to modify the muster roll had been submitted 
to him by the express order of the Secretary of War, who states that 
he was personally cognizant of the pendency of the proposition, and 
who, under the law, personally had the final decision in the matter. 
Gen. Ainsworth had no right to assume that it came from junior 
officers, far less to criticize its supposed origin or source. It was his 


d 


RELIEF OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE ARMY. 3 

business to answer it fairly and courteously and respectfully on its 
merits. The very defense suggested assumes in itself an additional 
breach of discipline. 

A consideration of the entire record makes it clear to us that the 
Adjutant General was not unfairly treated. There was no ‘ ‘garbling” 
of evidence or distortion of language. On the contrary, the record 
shows that the Secretary of War went to almost the extreme of leni¬ 
ency. The letter of September 19, from Huntington, was couched 
in language of friendly caution; and, even after the repetition of the 
offenses in the memorandum of February 3, the Adjutant General 
was allowed to retire without a court-martial. 

While we regret that a long and faithful service should have so 
terminated, the officer, who virtually admitted his fault by his un¬ 
willingness to submit his conduct to a court composed of his peers, 
can not now complain of being badly treated. The paramount interest 
which must never be lost sight of is the morale and efficiency of the 
Army. It would, in our opinion, be a most unfortunate thing for the 
discipline of our military establishment if such language and temper 
as this record discloses should be condoned or extenuated. 

Butler Ames. 

Geo. W. Prince. 

Julius Kahn. 

John Q. Tilson. 


O 




































































































